Explanation and Disclaimer: Worst of the Anti-Mormon Web asks the question: How come Loftes Tryk is not on the web? Well, now it turns out that Loftes is on the web. Oh well.

If you are humor-impaired, leave immediately. This is not for the faint-of-heart, the thin-skinned, or especially humorless anti-Mormons. If you are a humorless anti-Mormon, this site is intended to mock you—I am laughing at you.

Worst of the Anti-Mormon Web appears each Tuesday of the week. Twice a week was just a bit too much work.

Need to see the archive editions? Click back there.

Confused by what you see? Did you think that this site would be 1) full of anti-Mormon stuff beating up on helpless Mormons or 2) full of Latter-day Saint stuff beating up on antis? Be sure to read the Infrequently Asked Questions. And please be sure to read it before you blast some email my way. I know reading is tough and the web does nothing to encourage attention spans, but I am confident that everyone who can handle a browser can read and understand this short file. (For those who want to object to this outrageous claim, I can only counter that there is no real evidence that Ed Decker or John L. Smith surf the web.)

Questions, comments, criticism? Want to submit your favorite bigoted, biased anti-Mormon site for a glorious "WORST" award? Send email to Gary Novak [Gary is no longer accepting e-mail regarding this site]. If you are an incensed anti-Mormon, please please, please send me email. I will be only too glad to post your note here [defunct].

Worst of the
Anti-Mormon Web

I am pleased to announce that Matt Paulson has finally made it to the web! If one can compare low things with even lower things, Paulson is the the absolute and undisputed king of bad grammar and diction among anti-Mormons. There is no one funnier.

Now if you are thinking that "Matt Paulson" is not exactly a household word in the bizarre and macabre world of anti-Mormonism, you are exactly right. He once claimed in a letter to a friend, however, that his "Can Mormonism be Found in the First Century?" had been "distributed throughout the North America." No, I did not misquote the redoubtable Mr. Paulson. This is just the way it goes. Still never heard of Matt Paulson? A quick check with Sandra Tanner and at several Christian bookstores also turned up a goose egg.

And now, just for the fun of it, a guided tour of the works of Matt Paulson, proprietor of "Preach the Word" ministry.

The fun begins right on the Weighing Mormonism homepage. Notice that the second article is titled, "Straining a Gnat Only to Swallow a Camel." Now it is well-known that many a gnat must be strained in order to swallow a camel. Of course, what Mr. Paulson meant to say is "straining at a gnat only to swallow a camel." Rule 1 for reading Matt Paulson: participles are unimportant; avoid them whenever possible. And Rule 2 is like unto it: verbs are an unnecessary annoyance; avoid them when possible.

With these two rules in mind, you are now ready to look at the actual articles. I urge you to take your time and savor the poorly constructed sentences, missing words and other mental lapses.

The Paulsonisms can be found in each essay, but because you demand the worst in anti-Mormon entertainment, I offer the following excerpts from his magnificently reasoned "A Critique of D. Charles Pyle's Review of Questions to Ask your Mormon Friend written by Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson." But please, please peruse these essays for yourself and enjoy, make a hour of it.

Why tell FARM readers to see Blackman as if Johnson and McKeever have quoted it and listed it in their biography?!

Logically, Mr. Pyle had serious doubt about the about the book's reasoning.

And here is an entire paragraph:

After reviewing Questions, I found Mr. Pyle in another mistake. This is not true statement.

And on to more random quotes and sterling reasoning:

In context, the question to Jesus is on salvation, not deification. Even if we apply this scripture to another context, such as that God can do anything, it still does not insinuate that men can become gods. In fact, it is logical that God cannot do anything against his nature. God cannot make himself lie or make himself go out of existence, or make two plus two to equal five, etc.

Firstly, there are differences between Acts an the First Vision. One person, Luke, wrote the three accounts of Paul's conversion. The First Vision Accounts come from several individuals. Also, the book of Acts was written almost two thousands years ago. One would expect less disagreement in Joseph Smith's 1830 First Vision account. The event took place only 150 years ago and there is serious confusion about the events.

So if I understand the above correctly, we should expect Luke not to be able to tell a consistent story while we should expect an entirely consistent story from those who recorded the so-called First Vision. Good reasoning!

Accordingly, the Book of Mormon inserts the conjunction word "and" in other places. It appears that the Book of Mormon editor desires to make the flow smoother. Does the word "and" provide evidence that an ancient text existed? I think not.

However, we must approach Mr. Pyle's diatribe by the understanding of the issue.

Why would the people of the 19th century be offended to hear the Word of God in their own language? Jesus spoke the common language of his day. The King James wrote in the common language of their day. The modern Bible translators have written the Bible into today's English. Dr. Daniel Peterson of BYU said about the KJV use in the Book of Mormon, "This precise nature of this relationship is not altogether clear, despite what critics of Joseph Smith are wont to allege. [12] Why not admit the obvious? BYU professors have their very jobs in jeopardy if they retreat from the teachings of the Mormon Church. Thus they must convince themselves that the uniqueness of the Book of Mormon outweighs the obvious errors, including KJV plagiarism!

Or, to put the matter a little more plainly, BYU professors work at BYU because they have faith in Jesus Christ and believe in His restored Church. For what it's worth, the vast majority of BYU professors simply do not express opinions on the Book of Mormon and their jobs do not depend on their expressing opinions about it.