It’s a little difficult to adequately respond to questions/issues that you don’t have satisfactory answers for.I have a question wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2020 8:57 pmhttps://www.amazon.com/Case-Book-Mormon ... merReviewsA wavering member, however, might want to know how to address the fact that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in a hat to “translate” the Book of Mormon, or to address the question of how intertwined the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is with Smith’s treasure seeking. Smith used the stone and hat for both translating and treasure seeking. Hidden/slippery treasure is very much enmeshed in the Book of Mormon narrative (for instance see Helaman 12:18, 13:18-20, 31-37). The seer stone recently was revealed to still exist with the church and made worldwide news. This is problematic for wavering members and yet Callister doesn’t address it at all. Like any well trained attorney he is confronting only the questions where he already has an answer.
Another problematic issue that would be of interest are racist elements of the Book of Mormon that comport to early 19th century thought. Again, Callister is silent.
He inadequately addresses anachronisms by pointing out some anachronisms critics may have had but were later resolved (he points to writing on metal plates, cement, and barley several times). But he leaves a myriad of anachronisms unaddressed, for instance the Book of Mormon’s Deutero-Isaiah problem, or the Book of Mormon’s reliance on the 1769 version of the King James edition of the Bible (identified by the 1769 version’s errors being included in the Book of Mormon). His approach to anachronistic items such as horses, cattle, elephants, silk, and steel is to complain it is rash to point to these things “when one recalls that “experts” in prior years were absolutely certain there were no such things in the Book of Mormon times as metal plates, cement, or barley”. He un-ironically seeks to bolster his argument here by quoting George Santayana “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”
Callisters’ intellectually dishonest cherry picking of data points is specifically disapproved of by his own Church.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... y?lang=engLying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.
That shouldn’t come as any great surprise.
Regards,
MG