jonw@tekmdp.UUCP (Jonathan White) (08/26/83)
This is a follow-up to my original "Case against the Book of Mormon". Once again, most of the following information comes from "The Kingdom of the Cults" by Walter Martin. One of the more obvious problems with believing the whole Mormon theology is that their founding figure, "the Prophet, Seer and Revelator," Joseph Smith was a false prophet. For one thing, he drew heavily upon published articles in newspapers and magazines. In fact, one of his famous prophecies concerning the Civil War was drawn chiefly from material published in New York state at the time. Smith declared in Doctrine and Covenants, Section 87: "...At the rebellion of South Carolina...the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain...and then war shall be poured out upon all nations...And...slaves shall rise against their masters...and the remnants...shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation." Well, sure enough, the Civil War did break out some years after Smith's death in 1844, but neither England nor "all nations" became involved. The slaves did not "rise against their masters," and the "remnants" (who were the Indians) were themselves vexed by the Gentiles. 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. 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; 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." I have cited only a few cases, but entire books have been written on this very subject. "The Testing of Joseph Smith Jr -- Was He a Prophet?" by James D. Bales, is a good example. 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. Another thing that is now abundantly clear, is that the author of the Book of Mormon displayed a woeful lack of knowledge of world history and the history of the Jewish people. For example, the Jaredites enjoyed glass windows in their barges that crossed the ocean, and Nephi knew the use of steel and of a compass despite the fact that none of these things had yet been invented. (See 1 Nephi 4:9.) Now for a few embarrassing contradictions found in Mormon literature. Joseph Smith sought to justify his womanizing ways by claiming that polygamy was decreed by divine revelation. In Doctrines and Covenants he wrote about some of the characters described in Genesis: "God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people... Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved." (Section 132, Verses 34 and 32.) The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, categorically states: "Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; for I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women." (Jacob 2:26-28.) There is also an interesting discrepancy between two of the books within the Book of Mormon. In Moses 2:1, it is stated: "I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest." The Book of Abraham, on the other hand, repudiates this monotheistic view by stating: "And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And THEY went down at the beginning, and THEY, that is the GODS, organized and formed the heavens and the earth." (Abraham 4:1.) Maybe one of the Mormons out there can tell us which account of the creation is correct. Now that I have presented sufficient proof that the Book of Mormon could not possibly be divinely inspired, in a future article I will outline what I consider to be the most plausible theory that explains where the Book of Moromon really came from. Stay tuned. Jon White Tektronix Aloha, Ore
jonw@tekmdp.UUCP (Jonathan White) (08/29/83)
Oops! Before the Mormons out there have a chance to jump all over me, I would like to point out an error in my last article. I had mentioned a serious contradiction between the creation stories contained in the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham, and had stated that both books were contained in the Book of Mormon. If I had looked in my copy of the Book of Mormon (which I bought at a garage sale for 25 cents) I would have noticed that the Book of Abraham is not there -- it is located in a book that the Mormons hold equally sacred: The Pearl of Great Price. Needless to say, the contradiction still stands. Jon White Tektronix Aloha, Ore
russ@dadla-b.UUCP (09/02/83)
John White says that he has "presented sufficient proof that the Book of
Mormon could not possibly be divinely inspired," whereas in reality he has
only proved that he is only willing to accept that information which
supports his thesis and reject the information which would contradict.
Joseph Smith was a false prophet. For one thing, he
drew heavily upon published articles in newspapers and magazines.
After John stated this I was looking forward to exerpts from the magazines,
but none were forthcoming. Instead he gives excerpts from one of
Joseph's revelations that speaks about the civil war and other wars
that will take place.
"...At the rebellion of South Carolina...the Southern States will
call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain...and
then war shall be poured out upon all nations...And...slaves
shall rise against their masters...and the remnants...shall vex
the Gentiles with a sore vexation."
Well, sure enough, the Civil War did break out some years after
Smith's death in 1844, but neither England nor "all nations"
became involved. The slaves did not "rise against their
masters," and the "remnants" (who were the Indians) were
themselves vexed by the Gentiles.
John makes the mistake of assuming the revelation says one thing and
then proving that this did not come to pass. "all nations" did not
become involved in the civil war and the revelation does not say that
they would, it is referring to a later time.
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":
Two of the major sources of anti-Mormon information today are Rev. Walter
Marin and Jerald and Sandra Tanner. The Tanners published a pamphlet
examining the Cowdery "Defence," although the "Defence" had previously
been generally accepted they present convincing evidences that it was not
written by Cowdery. I think that the book you quote from by Martin was
probably out of date because he helped them in this examination.
"One of the most serious problems facing a student of Mormon history
today is the fact that those who have gone before us have not always
been honest. Both Mormon and anti-Mormon writers have sometimes been
guilty of deceit. This makes it very difficult to determine what the
truth is with regard to some issues."
"After carefully examining the evidence, we have come to the conclusion
that the "Defence" is probably a spurious work written sometime
after 1887 -- i.e., after David Whitmer's pamphlet appeared."
I think it is interesting that what appears to be your strongest claim against
the Book of Mormon witnesses and support for the "Dannites" comes from
this spurious document.
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.
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.
Another thing that is now abundantly clear, is that the author of
the Book of Mormon displayed a woeful lack of knowledge of world
history and the history of the Jewish people. For example, the
Jaredites enjoyed glass windows in their barges that crossed the
ocean, and Nephi knew the use of steel and of a compass despite
the fact that none of these things had yet been invented. (See 1
Nephi 4:9.)
I find this apparent lack of knowledge of world history a strong case for
the Book of Mormon. If Joseph Smith had been writing the Book of Mormon
he would have tried to have it fit the world picture as he knew it at that
time. Since the Book of Mormon did not agree with scholarship at that time
and since then it has been found that what the Book of Mormon says is not
inconsistent with ancient history, this is more support for the Book of
Mormon. I will present a later article showing that steel and glass were
invented long before John allows in his view of world history.
I would say that far from a being "sufficient proof" against the Book of
Mormon, John has only shown how flimsy his proof is because surely he is
presenting us with the strongest items.
Russell Anderson
Tektronixjonw@tekmdp.UUCP (Jonathan White) (09/09/83)
This article is my response to Russ' rebuttal of my second collection of
proofs against the Book of Mormon. My chief complaint with Russ remains
the same -- he attacks only certain parts of certain points, and leaves
most of the evidence unmentioned. But this time I will see if I can smoke him
out. Now, without further ado, let's hear from Russ:
John White says that he has "presented sufficient proof that the Book of
Mormon could not possibly be divinely inspired," whereas in reality he has
only proved that he is only willing to accept that information which
supports his thesis and reject the information which would contradict.
I think that I could reasonably say the same thing about you. You must keep
in mind that YOU are the one making extravagant claims, and therefore it is up
to YOU to not only prove your contentions, but also to disprove any reasonable
objections to those contentions. And thus far you have not even addressed one
half of all the evidence that I have presented against the Book of Mormon. In
a future article I will summarize all of the evidence presented on both sides.
One of the things to which Russ took strong exception was my assertion that
Joseph Smith was a false prophet. According to "The Inspired Version of the
Holy Scripture" (the Bible that Smith personally approved), if a prophet blows
it even once, then he is a false prophet. (See Deuteronomy 18:20-22; this
passage is the same in the King James version as in Smith's version ).
So that makes my job very easy because it is difficult to find any of Smith's
prophesies that actually occurred. If Russ wants to prove that Joseph Smith
was a true prophet of God, then he must prove me wrong on all counts, or else
must admit Mormonism is a sham.
Smith's most famous prediction, the one that "really proves him to be prophet"
was made on December 25, 1832:
"...At the rebellion of South Carolina...the Southern States will
call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain...and
then war shall be poured out upon all nations...And...slaves
shall rise against their masters...and the remnants...shall vex
the Gentiles with a sore vexation." (Doctrine and Covenants, 87:1-5)
Larry Jonas has shown that Smith could have easily gotten the idea for this
revelation from views of his time:
"...At the time Smith made his prophecy, the Nation expected a war between
North and South to begin at the rebellion of South Carolina. This can be
confirmed from a U.S. history book. Better yet, let me confirm it from a
Latter-day Saints Church publication, "Evening and Morning Star",...the
issue which came out for January 1833. The news of South Carolina's
rebellion was known...before December 25, 1832 but it was not available
in time for the December issue...The example [news article] and the
prophesy are strangely similar...Both consider the pending war a sign of
the end -- which it was not. In fact, THE WAR EXPECTED IN 1832 DID NOT
COME TO PASS.... [emphasis mine -JW]
(Mormon Claims Examined, by Larry S. Jonas, p. 52)
Smith said that war "will shortly come to pass," and it did not. The Civil
War didn't occur until 30 years later. Smith clearly stated the Southern
States "will call on all other nations...and then war shall be poured out upon
all nations..." There is simply no way that the Mormons can weasel out of the
fact that Smith predicted world-wide conflict shortly after 1832. He did not
predict the Civil War as it happened.
Here is all that Russ had to say on the matter:
John makes the mistake of assuming the revelation says one thing and
then proving that this did not come to pass. "all nations" did not
become involved in the civil war and the revelation does not say that
they would, it is referring to a later time.
I think that I have shown in the previous paragraphs that Russ is incorrect on
this point. I find it highly interesting that he totally ignored my comments
on the rest of the prediction: "The slaves did not `rise against their
masters,' and the `remnants' (who were the Indians) were themselves vexed by
the Gentiles." Smith obviously thought that the Slaves and Indians would get
involved and prevail, but since it never happened, and can't ever happen,
Joseph Smith goofed. Unless Russ can explain his way out of this one, Smith
was a false prophet.
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.
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; 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. 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..."
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)
If Russ can worm his way out these false predictions, I'll eat my terminal.
Clearly Joseph Smith was a false 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.
Russ also totally ignored the contradictions in Mormon literature that I
presented. I will reprint them below, in case he has forgotten about them.
I would say that far from a being "sufficient proof" against the Book of
Mormon, John has only shown how flimsy his proof is because surely he is
presenting us with the strongest items.
If my proof is indeed "flimsy," then you had better do a more adequate job of
refuting it, or you are going to seriously damage your case.
Jon White
Tektronix
Aloha, Ore
Contradictions in Mormon Literature That Russ Forgot to Address (posted 8/26)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for a few embarrassing contradictions found in Mormon literature. Joseph
Smith sought to justify his womanizing ways by claiming that polygamy was
decreed by divine revelation. In Doctrines and Covenants he wrote about some
of the characters described in Genesis:
"God commanded Abraham, and Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to wife. And why did
she do it? Because this was the law; and from Hagar sprang many people...
Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye
shall be saved." (Section 132, Verses 34 and 32.)
The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, categorically states:
"Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall not any man
among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; for I,
the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women." (Jacob 2:26-28.)
There is also an interesting discrepancy between two of the books within the
Book of Mormon [these books are really in Pearl of Great Price -- my
mistake]. In Moses 2:1, it is stated:
"I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I
created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth
upon which thou standest."
The Book of Abraham, on the other hand, repudiates this monotheistic view
by stating:
"And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And THEY went down at the beginning,
and THEY, that is the GODS, organized and formed the heavens and the earth."
(Abraham 4:1.)
Maybe one of the Mormons out there can tell us which account of the creation
is correct.