I found the above video by Joel P. Kramer, a documentary in criticism of Joseph Smith’s prophetic claims, which I thought was interesting and worth commenting on. It is a long video, so I will have to be selective, responding to the main highlights. The documentary is presented in the form of a dialogue between himself and a Church member by the name of Greg Gifford, and begins as follows:
Joel: “I had lived in the state of Utah for more than 15 years before moving here to Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. Along with many Jews, Muslims, and Christians, I also found a strong Mormon presence here; for example this is the Jerusalem campus of Brigham Young University. This is Greg Gifford. I met him while he was touring the country. Greg is a generational Mormon, and a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints. …
“Greg agreed to get together at my Jerusalem apartment to have a discussion about the prophecies of both Mormon and biblical prophets. We begin our conversation focused on the test of a prophet found in the Bible, in the book of Deuteronomy, chapter 18. Deuteronomy 18:21 asks a question, ‘How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?’ …
“The next verse answers this question. ‘If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.’ What is it that would cause a prophet to fail the test of a prophet? …
“It is a brilliant and very logical test, isn’t it. A prophet is someone who claims God is speaking through them, so how can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord? The answer is the test of a prophet. Here is how it works: since only God knows the future, people can test a prophet by how accurately he predicts the future. If even one of his predictions does not take place or come true, that prophet fails the test; and if a prophet fails, then God commands a people to put him to death, and to not be afraid of him. The introduction page to the Book of Mormon reads, ‘The book was written by many ancient prophets, by the spirit of prophecy and revelation’. …
“Then we should be able to test; we should be able to take this Deuteronomy 18 simple test, and apply it to Mormon prophets, …
“And we should be able to take that simple test, to be fair, we should also apply it to biblical prophets. So are you willing to do that?”
Greg: “Yeah, let’s do it.”
Joel: “The first prophet we will test is the Book of Mormon prophet Nephi. One of his prophecies is summarized by the Mormon Church under the chapter heading of first Nephi, chapter 13. Here Nephi is predicting the loss of many plain and precious parts of the Bible, causing a need for the restoration of the gospel, the coming forth of latter-day scripture. So you would agree then that Christianity is based on the Old and the New Testament alone as Scripture. And then Mormonism is saying, ‘Well, no, there is a problem with the Bible, it has been corrupted. This [Book of Mormon] is the restoration of that corruption.’ And so, these books [LDS scriptures] you need to take into account in addition to the Bible?”
Greg: “Yes.”
Incorrect! That is not the right conclusion. “Corrupted” is not the right word, and is not the word used in the Book of Mormon. On the contrary, the Book of Mormon attaches great value to the Bible. Here are some quotes:
1 Nephi 13:
19 And I Nephi beheld that the Gentiles, that had gone out of captivity [to the New World], were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.
20 And it came to pass that I Nephi beheld that they did prosper in the land [of North America]; and I beheld a book, and it was carried forth among them.
21 And the angel said unto me, Knowest thou the meaning of the book?
22 And I said unto him, I know not.
23 And he said, Behold, it proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew; and I Nephi beheld it. And he said unto me, The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel. And it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets. And it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many. Nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; wherefore they are of great worth unto the Gentiles.
• • •
40 And the angel spake unto me, saying, These last records [i.e. Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures], which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first [i.e. the truth of the Bible]; which are of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb; and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved.
2 Nephi 3:
12 Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write [i.e. the Book of Mormon]; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write [i.e. the Bible]; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins [Book of Mormon], and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah [Bible], shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.
Nowhere in the Book of Mormon (or any other LDS Scripture) does it say that the Bible has been “corrupted”. It says that it is true, and teaches correct doctrine. It says that things have gone missing from it, which is not the same as saying that it has been “corrupted”. The word “corrupted” carries with it that implication that it is unreliable and untrustworthy, and cannot be relied upon to teach correct doctrines, which is not what the Book of Mormon, and other LDS Scriptures are saying. The book of Doctrine and Covenants (another sacred book of canonized LDS scripture) also confirms the above. Here are a couple of pertinent quotes:
Doctrine and Covenants 10:
62 Yea, and I will also bring to light my gospel which was ministered unto them [i.e. the Book of Mormon], and, behold, they shall not deny that which you have received [meaning the Bible], but they shall build it up, and shall bring to light the true points of my doctrine, yea, and the only doctrine which is in me.
Doctrine and Covenants 42:
12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.
So nowhere in the Book of Mormon, or any other LDS Scripture does it say that the Bible has been “corrupted”. It says that things have gone missing from it, which is not the same as saying that it has been “corrupted”. It says one purpose of the latter-day LDS scripture is to confirm the truthfulness of the Bible, and that it contains the fullness of the gospel. It can’t be “corrupted” if it contains the “fullness of the gospel”. The Bible is part of the canonized scriptures of the Church, meaning that it has equal status with the rest. Neither one is considered “better” or “superior” to the other (as they are suggesting). All four books of the canon have equal status with each other. In another blog post I have made a convincing case for missing Scripture in the Bible, which can be seen here. The evidence for missing scripture within the Bible is overwhelming. The conversation between Joel and Greg then continues as follows:
Joel: “So this is what you would trust in as a Bible. Would it be like this, would it be the Bible first, and then, Mormon scripture?”
Greg: “Uh, well, it has been corrupted, so let’s copy this way, it has got to be that way [LDS scripture first, followed by the Bible].”
Wrong! See above.
Joel: “Okay, in the Book of Mormon, the prophet Nephi also states, ‘Thou fool, that shall say, a Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible’. So do you think that as a Christian, I am a fool for believing in the Bible alone?”
Greg: “I do.”
The “foolishness” is not in believing in the Bible. The “foolishness” is in assuming that because God has spoken once, he can never speak again, and there can never be any more revelations from God, apart from what is in the Bible. That is what is being described in the Book of Mormon as “foolish”. And I agree with that assessment. It is extremely foolish to assume that just because God has spoken once, he can never speak again, and there can never be any more revelations from God, other than what is in the Bible.
Joel: “Really? The notes at the bottom of the page claimed that this prophecy was given between 600 and 592 BC. At this time the Mormon prophet Nephi prophesied that after the 12 Apostles of the Lamb, would come the formation of that great and abominable church: ‘For behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious’. So around 600 BC Nephi prophesied that after the Twelve Apostles of Jesus, the ‘abominable church,’ which refers to the early Christian church, would corrupt the Bible. So let me make sure that I get this absolutely straight. Here is the Bible that I use as a Christian. What chapter 13 is saying is that plain and precious portions went missing from my Bible.”
“Missing” is not the same as “corrupted;” there is compelling evidence for missing scripture in the Bible, as explained above. And it is not made very clear in the Book of Mormon what the “great and abominable church” is referring to. But it definitely is not referring to the “early Christian church”. Joel then continues:
Joel: “‘Because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, Satan hath great power over them; and that great pit which have been digged for them by that great and abominable Church, which was founded by the devil and his children, that he might lead away the souls of man down to hell’. So is the Book of Mormon saying that because of this corruption of the Bible, those who will follow this corrupted Bible would end up in hell?”
Greg: “yes!”
Absolutely not! That is not what the Scripture is saying. It is saying two things: The first is that the purpose of removing the “plain and precious parts” from the Bible by the “great and abominable church” was to “lead men down to hell”. It doesn’t say that they will accomplish their purpose. The second thing it is saying is that, because of the removal of those “plain and precious parts,” there is a lot of confusion and disagreements among Christians about the true points of doctrine, which is true. Look at all the countless number of Christian sects, churches, and denominations, all of them based on some disagreement on some point of theology or doctrine, and all of them claiming to be biblical. That is what that scripture in the Book of Mormon is referring to. It is saying that the Bible lacks clarity on certain points of doctrine, because of the removal of those “plain and precious parts,” resulting in all this confusion and disagreement among various sects, churches, and denominations about the true points of doctrine.
Joel: “So to test Nephi’s prophecy, I talked to Greek linguist Dr. Christophe Rico, because he is an expert on the reliability of the Bible …”
Then Joel spends some time interviewing several NT scholars and archaeologists to confirm that the Bible has not been “corrupted,” which are meaningless and irrelevant, because they are not arguing something that is in dispute. The Bible has not been “corrupted”. And as I said before, there is plenty of internal evidence for missing scripture in the Bible, as demonstrated in my other post which can be seen here. When the scholars have responded to that overwhelming evidence, they can let us know, and we will talk about it more. Skipping all of that redundant material, at around 17.13 minutes into the video Joel continues his dialogue with Greg as follows:
Joel: “So back to what is being claimed by Nephi in chapter 13, did his prediction that our modern Bibles would become corrupt after the time of the Twelve Apostles of the Lamb, did that come to pass in history?”
Greg: “I believe that, well, from what I have been taught as a youngster, yes, it has occurred.”
Joel: “And what does the evidence that you find here, going and looking at these ancient copies of the Bible, tell you in regards to that?”
Greg: “That it has not, they are all the same.”
Joel: “Then what would the logical conclusion be?”
Greg: “Well, it just shows Nephi was wrong when he said, when he made that statement.”
Joel: “Since Nephi’s prediction that the Bible would be corrupted did not take place in history, he fails the test of a prophet.”
Which of course he doesn’t, because they are talking about two different things. The case for missing scripture in the Bible is undeniable, as explained above. Then he embarks on another lengthy argumentation about how the Old Testament prophets correctly prophesied about the coming of the Messiah, which again is pointless and irrelevant, because it is not in dispute. Skipping all of that, at around 22.05 minutes into the video he contrasts it with another supposed false prophecy in the Book of Mormon, as follows:
Joel: “But Micah is not the only prophet who predicted where the Messiah would be born. In the Book of Mormon, the Prophet Alma prophesied, ‘And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem’. You can turn to Alma chapter 7 verse 10.”
Greg: “Oh, this is bad scripture!”
Joel: “Book of Mormon is saying that Jesus is born in Jerusalem. Micah is in the Bible, is saying that the Messiah is born in Bethlehem. Can they both be right?”
Greg: “No.”
Joel: “Mormon scholars try to argue that since Bethlehem is so close to Jerusalem, they can be considered the same place. Was Bethlehem, part of the land of the Bible? …”
The “Mormon scholars” are wrong! The correct explanation is given below.
Joel: “The New Testament declares that Micah’s prophecy was fulfilled when Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Since Jesus was not born in Jerusalem, Alma fails the test of a prophet.”
Incorrect! These guys haven’t read the Book of Mormon properly, to understand it in its proper historical context. In the Book of Mormon, the expression “land of Jerusalem” is used repeatedly and consistently by the Nephites to refer to that region of the world where their ancestors had come from, meaning the entire Palestinian territories. The Nephites lived on an entirely different continent, and had no direct contact with, or acquaintance of the region of the world where their ancestors had come from; and the phrase, “land of Jerusalem” had become a kind of idiomatic expression among them to refer to that region of the world where their ancestors came from, meaning the whole of the Palestinian lands. Here are some examples:
1 Nephi 18:
24 And it came to pass that we did begin to till the earth, and we began to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our seeds into the earth, which we had brought from the land of Jerusalem. And it came to pass that they did grow exceedingly; wherefore, we were blessed in abundance.
2 Nephi 1:
1 And now it came to pass that after I, Nephi, had made an end of teaching my brethren, our father, Lehi, also spake many things unto them, and rehearsed unto them, how great things the Lord had done for them in bringing them out of the land of Jerusalem.
2 Nephi 1:
3 And he also spake unto them concerning the land of promise, which they had obtained—how merciful the Lord had been in warning us that we should flee out of the land of Jerusalem.
Jacob 2:
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
Mosiah 1:
11 And moreover, I shall give this people a name, that thereby they may be distinguished above all the people which the Lord God hath brought out of the land of Jerusalem; and this I do because they have been a diligent people in keeping the commandments of the Lord.
Mosiah 7:
20 And again, that same God has brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem, and has kept and preserved his people even until now; and behold, it is because of our iniquities and abominations that he has brought us into bondage.
Alma 7:
10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.
Alma 10:
3 And Aminadi was a descendant of Nephi, who was the son of Lehi, who came out of the land of Jerusalem, who was a descendant of Manasseh, who was the son of Joseph who was sold into Egypt by the hands of his brethren.
Alma 36:
29 Yea, and he has also brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem; and he has also, by his everlasting power, delivered them out of bondage and captivity, from time to time even down to the present day; and I have always retained in remembrance their captivity; yea, and ye also ought to retain in remembrance, as I have done, their captivity.
Helaman 16:
19 Yea, why will he [Jesus] not show himself in this land as well as in the land of Jerusalem?
3 Nephi 16:
1 And verily, verily, I say unto you that I [Jesus] have other sheep, which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any parts of that land round about whither I have been to minister.
Mormon 3:
18 Yea, behold, I write unto all the ends of the earth; yea, unto you, twelve tribes of Israel, who shall be judged according to your works by the twelve [Apostles] whom Jesus chose to be his disciples in the land of Jerusalem.
Note especially the last quote, where it says that the Twelve Apostles of Jesus were chosen in the land of Jerusalem, thus making it clear that that expression is used idiomatically to refer to the whole of that part of the world where their ancestors had come from, meaning the whole of Palestinian territories, not the actual city of Jerusalem. Sometimes the phrase, “land of” is omitted, and only the word “Jerusalem,” or “at Jerusalem” is used to refer to the same thing, as in these verses:
2 Nephi 9:
5 Yea, I know that ye know that in the body he shall show himself unto those at Jerusalem, from whence we came; for it is expedient that it should be among them; for it behooveth the great Creator that he suffereth himself to become subject unto man in the flesh, and die for all men, that all men might become subject unto him.
2 Nephi 10:
5 But because of priestcrafts and iniquities, they at Jerusalem will stiffen their necks against him [Jesus], that he be crucified.
Helaman 16:
18 That it is not reasonable that such a being as a Christ shall come; if so, and he be the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, as it has been spoken, why will he not show himself unto us as well as unto them who shall be at Jerusalem?
3 Nephi 15:
14 And not at any time hath the Father given me [Jesus] commandment that I should tell it unto your brethren at Jerusalem.
3 Nephi 16:
4 And I command you that ye shall write these sayings, after I am gone, that if it so be that my people at Jerusalem, they who have seen me and been with me in my ministry, do not ask the Father in my name, that they may receive a knowledge of you by the Holy Ghost, …
3 Nephi 17:
8 For I perceive that ye desire that I should show unto you what I have done unto your brethren at Jerusalem, for I see that your faith is sufficient that I should heal you.
4 Nephi 1:
31 Nevertheless, and notwithstanding all these miracles, the people did harden their hearts, and did seek to kill them, even as the Jews at Jerusalem sought to kill Jesus, according to his word.
3 Nephi 21:
26 And then shall the work of the Father commence at that day, even when this gospel shall be preached among the remnant of this people. Verily I say unto you, at that day shall the work of the Father commence among all the dispersed of my people, yea, even the tribes which have been lost, which the Father hath led away out of Jerusalem.
The last verse in this list is particularly revealing. It depicts all of the Lost Tribes of Israel as having been led away out of Jerusalem, thus making it clear beyond any dispute that by that term is meant the whole of the Palestinian lands, not just the city of Jerusalem as such. Thus, far from casting doubt on the truth of the Book of Mormon, this extraordinary internal consistency is further evidence of its truth. There is no way that Joseph Smith could have concocted all of that out of his own mind. After that, Joel continues as follows:
Joel: “Next Greg and I tested the biblical prophet Isaiah. …”
This is then followed by another lengthy discussion about the Old Testament prophecies about the coming of the future Messiah, his death and resurrection etc., and their fulfilment in the New Testament, which again are not in dispute, and do not in any way challenge or question the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Skipping all of that, then at around 45:28 minutes into the video he adds the following:
Joel: “After applying the Deuteronomy 18 test of a prophet to both Bible and Book of Mormon prophets, it becomes clear that the biblical prophets accurately predicted the future, while the Mormon prophets failed.”
Wrong too many times! These guys are repeatedly demonstrating their own bias and ignorance. The authenticity of the Book of Mormon is not tarnished or diminished in the slightest. Then at around 48 minutes into the video he embarks on a lengthy criticism of Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible, which I have previously discussed and refuted in my other blog post which I had linked to above, which I will therefore skip. I will only briefly comment on something he says in relation to that subject at 53:6 minutes into the video, as follows:
Joel: “A key verse that Joseph Smith rewrote is John 1:1, that refers to Jesus as the “Word”. In the Bible, John 1:1 reads, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ But Smith’s version reads, ‘In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son, and the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.’ By changing ‘was God’ to ‘was of God,’ Smith stripped Jesus of his Deity.”
Wrong again! The doctrine of the Deity of Jesus Christ is more strongly taught and affirmed in modern LDS scripture than it is in the Bible. Both the Book of Mormon as well as the Doctrine and Covenants affirm the Deity of Christ more strongly than does the Bible (e.g. Book of Mormon Title Page; 1 Nephi 19:10; 2 Nephi 10:3–4; 11:7; 26:12; Mosiah 3:5; 7:27; 16:15; 27:31; Alma 11:39; 3 Nephi 11:14; Ether 3:17–18; D&C 1:24; 19:18; 35:1–2, 8; 38:1–3; 39:1–2; 63:6; 76:1–4; 101:16). This has also been discussed elsewhere in my blog, which can be seen here. The change in John 1:1 is not an attempt to deny the Deity of Christ, nor does it do so. In the New Testament, Jesus is also depicted as having come from God, and returning to God:
John 13:
3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;
4 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.
The changes made in John 1:1 does not teach a theology that contradicts the Bible; neither is it an attempt to deny the Deity of Jesus Christ, for the reasons given. Then the video adds this quote from Dr. Christophe Rico, whom Joel is interviewing:
Dr. Christophe Rico: “Not a single scholar could tell you that this is an accurate translation of the Gospel of John.”
Thus again questioning the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, which for the reasons previously given, are unjustified and invalid. I have previously provided compelling evidence for missing scripture in the Bible. When Dr. Christophe Rico, or any other scholars, have successfully refuted those evidences, then we have something to talk about. Then skipping more repetitive material in criticism of Joseph Smith’s translation, at around 56:22 minutes into the video he starts criticising Joseph Smith’s doctrine of deification, as follows:
Joel: “Another revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet was that these works even enable men to become gods. … The Apostle Paul preached that by grace God became a man to save men from their sins. In contrast, Joseph Smith preached that by their works men can become gods.”
Two issues with that statement: Firstly, Mormonism does not deny that God became man to save man from their sins. Secondly, the doctrine of deification, or theosis, was not invented by Joseph Smith. It was a widely held belief among the early Christians from the first century to the sixth, and numerous quotes affirming it can be found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. See here for examples. Traces of the doctrine can also be found in the Catholic Catechism and in the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church. And Joseph Smith did not teach that “by their works'' men become gods. By the grace of God they become gods. Then at 56:16 minutes into the video the following criticism is made of a supposed failed prophecy by Joseph Smith:
Joel: “In addition to this, Joseph Smith made his own predictions about the future, so he too can be tested. Recorded in Mormon scripture as a revelation given through Joseph Smith the prophet, that was given in 1832, that a temple shall be built in Missouri. Joseph Smith predicted that the temple ‘shall be reared in this generation, for verily this generation shall not all pass away until a house shall be built unto the Lord’. Just over a year later, the Mormons were forced to leave the area, and eventually the entire state of Missouri, where the temple was prophesied to be built.”
That was not a “prophecy,” it was a commandment. Just because the word “shalt” occurs in there, does not make it a prophecy. “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not steal” etc. (Exodus 20:13, 15), are not “prophecies,” but commandments. The context of the passage he is referring to likewise proves that it is a commandment, not a prophecy, or a prediction:
Doctrine and Covenants 84:
3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.
4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.
That is a commandment to build the city and the temple, not a “prophecy” that it will be. The Saints at that time were not sufficiently faithful, and therefore were not able to fulfil the commandment at that time, and therefore it was postponed for another time:
Doctrine and Covenants 105:
9 Therefore, in consequence of the transgressions of my people, it is expedient in me that mine elders should wait for a little season for the redemption of Zion.
But it was not a “prophecy” that it should have failed. A similar event occurs in the history of ancient Israel:
Numbers 13:
1 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Send thou men, that they may search the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel: of every tribe of their fathers shall ye send a man, every one a ruler among them.
The Lord promised the Israelites at that time that he would give them the promised land. But because of their unfaithfulness, that particular generation did not receive the promised blessing (Num. 14:22–24), but it was given to their descendants many years later (Num. 14:33; 32:13). A similar thing happened to the Latter-day Saints in the events described above. It was not a “prophecy” that it should have failed. It was a promised blessing which they failed to realize, as with the Israelites in Num. 14:22–24. Then he embarks on another lengthy discussion of how Jesus’ prophecies about the destruction of the Jewish temple was fulfilled, which again is not in dispute, and does not challenge the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, or the authenticity of his revelations; therefore no further comment is required.
________________
P. S.
After I had posted the above, I searched a bit more, and discovered that this video has been around for some time, and others had tried to respond to it before me, such as on FAIR here and here. I also discovered several different versions of it on the Internet, the best quality one of which is probably here, although it is not in a format that can be easily embedded in a blog post.
No comments:
Post a Comment