russ@dadla-b.UUCP (09/19/83)
In a continuation of my answers to Jon White, first from Jon: >I also mentioned three other false predictions made by Smith, and >for some odd reason Russ brushed them off. He totally ignored >this one: >Smith also blew it when he prophesied in Doctrine and Covenants >that he would possess the house he built at Nauvoo "for ever and >ever" (Section 124, verses 22, 23, and 59). The house was >destroyed after Smith's death, and the Mormons moved on to Utah. The verses that Jon quotes from the Doctrine and Covenants does not say that Joseph would possess the house "for ever and ever." It says, "let my servant Joseph and his seed after him have place in that house, from generation to generation, forever and ever, saith the Lord" (D&C 124:59) But this is not saying anything more than a legal heir has rights to the property. This revelation tells how others could obtain stock in the Nauvoo House, "And if any pay stock into their hands it shall be for stock in that house, for himself, and for his generation after him, from generation to generation, so long as he and his heirs shall hold that stock . . ."(D&C 124:69) Joseph and his seed would have place in the Nauvoo House if there was such a house, but if there wasn't then of course that stock would be meaningless. >Russ also attempted to brush off the following (quoting myself): >Oliver Cowdery relates a few of Smith's less-accurate predictions >in Cowdery's "Defense in a Rehearsal of My Grounds for Separating >Myself from the Latter Day Saints": >"I regard his [Smith's] frequent prediction that he himself shall >tarry on earth till Christ shall come in glory, and that neither >the rage of devils or the malice of men shall ever cause him to >fall by the hand of his enemies until he has seen Christ in the >flesh at his final coming, as little short of a piece of blasphemy; However, Joseph never said this >and it may be classed with that revelation that some >among you remember which sent Bro. Page and me so unwisely >to...Toronto with a prediction from the Lord by Urim and Thummim >[the magic stones -JW] that we would find there a man anxious to >buy the First Elder's copyright. I well remember we did not find >him, and had to return surprised and disappointed." >Russ didn't even feel it necessary to address himself to the >above two predictions because the Tanners think that Cowdery's >"Defense" may be a spurious work. Are you implying that it is not spurious? I could provide more evidence. >Unfortunately, Russ can't get >off the hook that easily, because these two predictions are >mentioned in other sources. >Joseph Smith wrote in his diary (March 10, 1843--July 14, 1843): >"...I prophesy in the name of the Lord God--& let it be written: >the Son of Man will not come in the heavens till I am 85 years >old 48 years hence or about 1890..." Joseph is not here saying that the Lord would return in 1890. Let me provide more background. "I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: 'Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter.' I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face. I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time." (Doctrine and Covenants 130:14-17) I find it very interesting that a statement of when Christ would NOT appear can be turned into a prediction of his coming. >Mormon historian B.H. Roberts, who addressed the "Toronto >prediction" much more honestly than Russ, offered this lame >excuse: >"...The revelation respecting the Toronto journey was not of God, >surely; else it would not have failed... ...in this instance of >the Toronto journey, JOSEPH WAS EVIDENTLY NOT DIRECTED BY THE >INSPIRATION OF THE LORD" [emphasis mine] (A Comprehensive >History of the Church, vol. 1, p.165) I think B. H. Roberts statement adequately covers this incident. >If Russ can worm his way out these false predictions, I'll eat my >terminal. Clearly Joseph Smith was a false prophet. I am not trying to "worm my way out", I generally just present information that your sources choose to ignore. Clearly Joseph IS a prophet. >In my previous article I stated: >Another interesting proof that the Book of Mormon is fraudulent >is found in an extensive claim in Mormon literature -- namely, >that the American Indians are descendants of the Lamanites (a >Semitic race of Jewish origin). If it can be shown that the >Indian could not possibly be of Semitic extraction, the entire >story of Nephi and his trip to America in 600 B.C. would be >proven false. And the fact is, according to anthropologists and >geneticists, such as W.C. Boyd and Bentley Glass, the American >Indian is not of Semitic extraction but has the phenotypical >characteristic of a Mongoloid. >To which Russ responded: >I thought that I precisely stated in my first installment on the >Book of Mormon that the Book of Mormon is not a history of the >American Indians. This is another example of raising a "straw >man" and then shooting it down. The Book of Mormon will stand >for claims it does make, not for those that have been attributed >to it. >Even if you, Russell Anderson, claim that the Book of Mormon is >not a history, that is exactly what it purports to be. And if >that history can be proven false, then the book is a fraud. If a >critical examination of the contents of the Book of Mormon is >"raising a straw man," how then are we ever going to determine if >the book is genuine? Russ seems to have no problem in using the >contents of the book when it suits his purposes. >Now why don't you address the issue at hand, Russ? Please >explain to us exactly how the American Indian evolved from >Semitic race in such a short time. Now let me try again. THE BOOK OF MORMON IS NOT A HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN INDIANS NOR DOES IT CLAIM TO BE. The Book of Mormon tells the history of a people on this continent, but not everyone of this continent! Some of the Indians may be descendants of the Lamanites. I think also that Jensen's article shows that it is still not even proven that the Indians are Mongoloid. You keep wanting to make the Book of Mormon say something that it doesn't ie. that the Book of Mormon is a record of ALL the people on the American continents. This is not a claim made by the Book of Mormon. Even in your quotes that show that the people spread out across the land would not force any more than several hundred miles to be inhabited by Book of Mormon people. Your archaeology is NOT Book of Mormon archaeology. I now think that all the questions that you raised in your Sept. 9th article have been answered. And I am still way behind. Let me take a moment to comment on your perspective. You have been reading recently quite a few anti-Mormon books by the Tanners, Walter Martin and others. I also have read several of these books as you know. They appear to be consistent logical and iron-clad in their arguments. After reading just a few chapters, you will be left with the impression, "How can the Mormon's believe this stuff, They must be so blind, if I just show them a few of these things their faith will be shattered." I know because I have known about some who have been devastated by these very things, but usually they have had a mistaken notion of what a prophet is or other mistaken ideas about the church. If an individual starts with the idea of prophet infallibility, they will be disappointed with real prophets. I appreciate the study you required of me to answer your claims. I better understand many things that I had ignored before. I admit that we are lazy and it is efforts like yours that challenge us to study closer where the truth is and I appreciate that. I had been a little uneasy with the Spaulding theory until you forced me to actually read the Spaulding manuscript and find for myself what the manuscript was like, what Spauldings writing style was like and particularly to find that the manuscript was finished after 1812. I had not previously realized how sandy the foundation was for the Spaulding theory. I repeat that from your perspective Joseph Smith seems devastated by the evidence, but there is much more of a view to see. I am realizing even more how minor those points are. They leave so many things that Joseph did totally unexplained. For instance, How could joseph Smith restore an account to the story of Enoch that was unknown until the Enoch fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls were published in 1976. Scholars continue to revise their understanding of the ancient world, whereas Joseph Smith is continually vindicated. Does this sound like a fraud? Another aspect of this discussion that has been mentioned: Has this gone on too long? It has been a consuming discourse and maybe the net would like to turn their attention to other things, but I feel that I should at least answer those issues that you have attacked me on. However you continue to bring up issues faster than I can respond and then criticize because I do not respond completely. I hope that others on the net can give me some idea as to where they would like to see this discussion go. Have we worn out the topic? Should I answer the questions raised by Jon White? Should I continue with my "proofs" for the Book of Mormon? I had hoped to establish the credibility of the Book of Mormon well enough to at least use it in some of the other dilemmas that are discussed in net.religion. Russell Anderson Tektronix