Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!dadla!dadla-b!russ
From: russ@dadla-b.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: More evidence against the Book of Mormon
Message-ID: <522@dadla-b.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Sep-83 10:09:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: dadla-b.522
Posted: Fri Sep  2 10:09:12 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Sep-83 12:02:56 EDT
Lines: 98


       
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
Tektronix