Replies

Finally, at least some decency in your postings. Keep it up if you want to be taken seriously by Mormons such as myself.

1. I admit, for whatever reason, Joseph Smith lied on at least one occasion about his practicing polygyny. There are credible reasons why, and I tend to sympathize with his plight at the time since the practice was viewed with abhorrence by 19th century Christian America (and still is today) despite the Bible on six occasions EXPLICITLY approves of the practice and even has God saying he was the one who gave David his wives. Regardless, polygamy is not the issue (if it was, we win since the Bible NEVER condemns the practice and the Jews were a polygynist society as opposed to the Roman monogamists); Joseph Smith’s fallibility is. Unfortunately for our opponents, the Bible repeatedly describes prophets as fallible, quarrelsome, contradictory, genocidal, and yes, even engaging in false prophecies (Ezekiel re Tyre; Jonah re Nineveh). Many of them also “lied:”

a. Abraham - Gen 12:10 20.
b. Isaac - Gen 26:7.
c. Jacob - Gen 27:19,24,32,35.
d. Jeremiah - Jer 38:24 28.
e. David - 1 Kg 2:8 9.
f. Micaiah - 1 Kg 22:14-15; 2 Chr 18:13-14.
g. Elisha - 2 Kg 6:19; 8:10,14-15.
h. Peter - Matt 26:69 75.

The suicide literalism many use on Deut 18 is utterly devastating to the credibility of biblical prophets.

2. Speaking about Joseph Smith’s so-called “false prophecies” I actually have an entire section devoted to examining every single one and refuting the claim they are false prophecies.

3. Re Jewish Indian heritage in the Book of Mormon. Shortly after my wife died four years ago, I attended a FAIR conference in Utah where I met the man (forgot his name) who started the so-called DNA evidence against the Book of Mormon argument that one now hears all the time among opponents of the church. I asked him and his wife a simple question, “Is there any DNA evidence that the Vikings lived in Newfoundland?” He said not to his knowledge. I then asked him “Does that then prove they never existed despite the demonstrable fact of the Viking presence in Newfoundland?” He couldn’t answer.

Critics face four problems when using DNA arguments against the BoM:

a) The relative size of the surviving BoM people as per overall American population was incredibly SMALL and will inevitably diminish by half with each passing generation due to genetic dilution. This then makes it virtually impossible to locate since we’re looking at a 70-90 fold dilution ratio over 1600 years. It does not matter whether one just focuses on the maternal or paternal genetic markers - it is impossible for the Lamanite survivors to maintain genetic purity without interbreeding with the larger indigenous people of the Americas.

Let me give an example: within the space of just four generations, my current wife’s Negroid ancestor (black skin, black eyes, black kinky hair) has two white, light brown hair, and brown-eyed great grandsons. And that’s only in the space of four generations. How much more severe will be the genetic dilution after 70-90 generations?

b) Science can never prove the historicity of the BoM because its transmission is so different from the Bible. Otherwise, science then proves the existence of God, which destroys our free agency, thus it becomes impossible for archaeology or any other science to prove the BoM true (no space here to elaborate further).

c) We simply do not know where the BoM civilizations took place, only that it occurred somewhere in the 42 million sq km of the Americas. It is foolish to assume we know where.

d) Many Mormons, probably up to a third, disbelieve the historicity of the BoM narrative, accepting its spiritual teachings as Scripture in the same way of the first nine chapters of Genesis. I happen to believe the BoM’s historicity, but admit an awful lot of Mormons do not share my view.

4. Sure the LDS church has changed doctrines over its history - what church hasn’t? However, doctrinal modification is not proof of falsity, given the Mormon belief in whatever is true and whatever is right. We grow, and change as we learn more about God and his will.

5. Re Joseph Smith bragging - while unseemly, strictly speaking, he was correct within the parameters of what he actually said. It’s kinda like me bragging to have lived longer than Jesus - strictly speaking, absolutely correct, but a really cheesy thing to do.

6. Clear contradiction of Scripture with LDS doctrine? ABSOLUTELY NOT. I know what I’m talking about. I remember an article I wrote for the FAIR magazine where I nailed the Tanners (called “Tanner Worship and Real Scholarship” - Google it) on their work (it was a refutation of James Juris and another’s hit piece). The MOST you can say is our interpretation differs on specific biblical passages - I’m giving you fair warning - don’t go there, you’ll regret it.

7. Well, we do not believe in the dictation theory of Scripture, so all your criticisms of the BoM’s grammar are irrelevant.

8. Gotta go to bed - I’ve done my apologetics quota for this year - good luck and I wish you the best.