Refuting Connor Smith & FAIRMormon on alleged False Prophecies in the Bible
Last week, a follower notified me of this post in the Somewhat Civil Christian Debates FaceBook group by their Mormon moderator:
The content of Smith's forthcoming arguments originates (almost verbatim) from this FAIRMormon / LDS article and if one takes the time to compare the two, it is rather plain to see that he is well... plagiarizing his peers arguments here. Of course, Smith is free to do as he pleases on the internet. However I cannot help but wonder, why he didn't bother to just drop the link & point people to the relevant sections to read it for themselves? But I digress.
Those of us who are not believing members of the Mormon religion, may already be familiar with 'FAIR' and may also already be acquainted with the fact that FAIR has a long track record of spinning the facts to fit their narrative. Let's see whether or not that stereotype holds true here shall we?
Here is the first set of claims from Smith:
Jeremiah doesn't call God a liar, if you read the text this is obvious: "Why has my pain been endless And my wound incurable, refusing to be healed? Will You indeed be to me like a deceptive stream With water that is unreliable?" In context, Jeremiah is having a raw & vulnerable moment and is petitioning the Lord to take action. Regarding the less than 70 years charge, according to the Biblical accounts, that is false. (Jeremiah 25:9-13, Jeremiah 29:10, 2 Chronicles 36:21, Daniel 9:2, Zechariah 7:5)
Jeremiah predicted multiple things regarding King Zedekiah, in regards to what would happen if he obeyed the voice of the Lord & surrendered to the King of Babylon - as well as the series of events that would take place if he refused. We know from the Biblical accounts that he did the latter, and paid dearly for his rebellion. (Jeremiah 21:1-10, 24:1-8, 27:-15, 29:21-23, 32:3-5, 34:2-5; 17-22, 37:1-10; 17, 38:17-23, 39:4-8, 52:3-11, Ezekiel 17:11-22, 2 Kings 24:17-20, 25:1-7, 2 Chronicles 36:11-21)
Regarding King Jehoiakim & Coniah (Jehoiachin) the totality of the texts paints a different picture than is presented by Smith / FAIR. Jeremiah 22:24-30 prophesied that the son of Jehoiakim - Coniah (Jehoiachin) would be handed over to Nebuchadnezzar and that he and his mother would die. Jeremiah 37:1 also promises punishment for the descendants of Jehoiakim Jeremiah 36:30 is quoting Jeremiah 22:30, which is actually in reference to Coniah (Jehoiachin), not Jehoiakim, as evidenced by verses 24-29. Fulfillment of these aforementioned passages is clearly seen later in 2 Kings 24:15-17.
Note here the smuggled in argument from incredulity and well... not really anything more. If one is familiar with the story of Hezekiah they already know 2 Kings 20:16-19 has prophesy of the things to come. As the benefactors of the abundant historical & scriptural records available to us today, we know what the broader meaning was, which includes Jerusalem being burned, plundered & destroyed as recorded in 2 Kings 25:8-12.
As for the point that it was not mentioned in the original prophecy, this is true. But who was contending that it must be there for God to do such a thing? While it may be puzzling to ponder on why the Lord does whatever He pleases (Psalm 115:3, 135:6, Daniel 4:35) any incredulousness about the particulars thereof on our part do nothing to discredit it, nor does it prove this prophecy to be failed, or untrue.
Jeremiah 18:5-10 tells us that God can relent of His pending wrath when people repented after disaster was declared against them, as well as the inverse that he can relent of the good promised if people turn their back on Him and sin. We see an example here of the Lord delaying the instruments of judgment - namely, King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon in this case.
Nothing to be concerned about here. Let's look at the 3rd group of claims:
Note the brazen & baseless assumption smuggled in that man is somehow entitled to any declaration of such conditions. The Christian position generally speaking does not contend that it must be that way for every given prophecy, my assumption is that this is part of the larger article that Smith was pulling from and he didn't bother to qualify this statement at all, but rather just left it in for reasons we can only guess. That said, they are swinging at a straw manned position here, and if they wish to spend their energies fighting against it, I won't stop them. (This is just another example of Jeremiah 18:5-10)
Continuing on to the 4th group of claims:
In any case, that claim is false. To me at least, it seems that these young Mormons are so blinded by their pre-commitments to defend the false prophets of Mormonism, that they are unable to put in the effort required to understand the whole counsel of God as-it-is. Likewise, they seem to have little desire to seek to how best to reconcile these texts in a way that employs a rigorous biblical hermeneutic, that exegetes instead of eisegeting, that does not assume the conclusion and then reason backwards, but allows for them to take every thought captive to Christ & be renewed in their minds and to be instructed by the scriptures. To rephrase, they don't care about steel manning their opponents position.
Here is the last set of arguments from Smith:
The conclusion offered by Smith / FAIR is what is actually unbiblical, as we have shown that they have failed to produce a single example of what they set out to prove. I disagree with the 'unspoken conditions' claim, as God does not owe mankind an explanation for what He does or doesn't do. Does he offer it at times? Yes, we have cited examples above with respect to King Zedekiah and the choice that was before him. Likewise, there are also examples where it was not offered. The assumption that all prophecy must be somehow conditional reeks of Open Theism to me. No man is entitled to know the secret will of the Lord, but it is a kindness He occasionally shows the sheep who know His voice and follow Him.
Conclusion:
This kind of gish gallop tactic is a hallmark of modern Mormon apologetics, they (FAIR) are often so long winded & their writings are riddled with all kinds of false statements, assumptions & conclusions that don't really hold up to genuine objective scrutiny. To the point where it becomes a very time consuming endeavor to identify the errors & refute them all. Admittedly, it is an effective method of argumentation from a pragmatic lens, as few will likely care enough to go out of their way to address the content.
In my humble opinion, this article was ultimately a desperate Tu Quoque fallacy, whereby the writers hoped to evade the criticism altogether that Joseph Smith was a false prophet who clearly made false prophecies. I won't let them off the hook that easy though!
Here is one such example from Smith's failed Kirtland Safety Society bank that he falsely prophesied would swallow up all the other Banks:
Of course, I would be remiss without seeking to point my Mormon readers towards the true & living Christ who can forgive their sins & be made to no longer be at war with God and His Word, but to have peace with Him forever. (Romans 5:1) I would urge each of these men to repent, and to know that the sins of blasphemy, idolatry, and lying are not beyond the amazing grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Please, turn from your sins, abandon Joseph Smith & his false teachings! It's not too late for you yet! But time is short, and you are not promised tomorrow, let today be the day of your salvation!
In this article, we are going to explore Smith's arguments & whether or not they hold any water under scrutiny, and I shall do my best to respond point by point. First, I'd like to point out that Smith is not giving credit to his source for these allegations of false prophecies in the Bible.
The content of Smith's forthcoming arguments originates (almost verbatim) from this FAIRMormon / LDS article and if one takes the time to compare the two, it is rather plain to see that he is well... plagiarizing his peers arguments here. Of course, Smith is free to do as he pleases on the internet. However I cannot help but wonder, why he didn't bother to just drop the link & point people to the relevant sections to read it for themselves? But I digress.
Those of us who are not believing members of the Mormon religion, may already be familiar with 'FAIR' and may also already be acquainted with the fact that FAIR has a long track record of spinning the facts to fit their narrative. Let's see whether or not that stereotype holds true here shall we?
Jeremiah doesn't call God a liar, if you read the text this is obvious: "Why has my pain been endless And my wound incurable, refusing to be healed? Will You indeed be to me like a deceptive stream With water that is unreliable?" In context, Jeremiah is having a raw & vulnerable moment and is petitioning the Lord to take action. Regarding the less than 70 years charge, according to the Biblical accounts, that is false. (Jeremiah 25:9-13, Jeremiah 29:10, 2 Chronicles 36:21, Daniel 9:2, Zechariah 7:5)
Jeremiah predicted multiple things regarding King Zedekiah, in regards to what would happen if he obeyed the voice of the Lord & surrendered to the King of Babylon - as well as the series of events that would take place if he refused. We know from the Biblical accounts that he did the latter, and paid dearly for his rebellion. (Jeremiah 21:1-10, 24:1-8, 27:-15, 29:21-23, 32:3-5, 34:2-5; 17-22, 37:1-10; 17, 38:17-23, 39:4-8, 52:3-11, Ezekiel 17:11-22, 2 Kings 24:17-20, 25:1-7, 2 Chronicles 36:11-21)
Regarding King Jehoiakim & Coniah (Jehoiachin) the totality of the texts paints a different picture than is presented by Smith / FAIR. Jeremiah 22:24-30 prophesied that the son of Jehoiakim - Coniah (Jehoiachin) would be handed over to Nebuchadnezzar and that he and his mother would die. Jeremiah 37:1 also promises punishment for the descendants of Jehoiakim Jeremiah 36:30 is quoting Jeremiah 22:30, which is actually in reference to Coniah (Jehoiachin), not Jehoiakim, as evidenced by verses 24-29. Fulfillment of these aforementioned passages is clearly seen later in 2 Kings 24:15-17.
No lies or false prophecies detected thus far. Let us move on to the 2nd set of claims:
As for the point that it was not mentioned in the original prophecy, this is true. But who was contending that it must be there for God to do such a thing? While it may be puzzling to ponder on why the Lord does whatever He pleases (Psalm 115:3, 135:6, Daniel 4:35) any incredulousness about the particulars thereof on our part do nothing to discredit it, nor does it prove this prophecy to be failed, or untrue.
Jeremiah 18:5-10 tells us that God can relent of His pending wrath when people repented after disaster was declared against them, as well as the inverse that he can relent of the good promised if people turn their back on Him and sin. We see an example here of the Lord delaying the instruments of judgment - namely, King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon in this case.
Nothing to be concerned about here. Let's look at the 3rd group of claims:
Note the brazen & baseless assumption smuggled in that man is somehow entitled to any declaration of such conditions. The Christian position generally speaking does not contend that it must be that way for every given prophecy, my assumption is that this is part of the larger article that Smith was pulling from and he didn't bother to qualify this statement at all, but rather just left it in for reasons we can only guess. That said, they are swinging at a straw manned position here, and if they wish to spend their energies fighting against it, I won't stop them. (This is just another example of Jeremiah 18:5-10)
Continuing on to the 4th group of claims:
The way I see it, we have two possibilities here: A. Mormons, who claim to believe in Christ & are a 'christian' religion, do not believe the scriptures and/or do not understand that clear prophecy in 2 Samuel 7:12-13 about the coming of Jesus Christ. B. They do understand, but for polemical reasons are employing the NT Jewish perspective regarding the Messiah that incorrectly assumed a literal earthly kingdom, and that Jesus would be a military king to come in and save them from their oppressors in Rome.
Neither of these are tenable positions to hold, unless one's goal is to be confidently incorrect in hope of their rhetoric being strong enough to fool someone into not questioning into their words & being unsure of how to respond. That, or they are perhaps expecting to capitalize on someone's ignorance of scripture. The irony here, is that they undermine their own position every time they attempt to chip away at the importance & necessity of prophets in arguing that there are biblical examples of false prophets in the Bible. In other words, it's "scorched earth" as Billy Butcher would say.
Neither of these are tenable positions to hold, unless one's goal is to be confidently incorrect in hope of their rhetoric being strong enough to fool someone into not questioning into their words & being unsure of how to respond. That, or they are perhaps expecting to capitalize on someone's ignorance of scripture. The irony here, is that they undermine their own position every time they attempt to chip away at the importance & necessity of prophets in arguing that there are biblical examples of false prophets in the Bible. In other words, it's "scorched earth" as Billy Butcher would say.
In any case, that claim is false. To me at least, it seems that these young Mormons are so blinded by their pre-commitments to defend the false prophets of Mormonism, that they are unable to put in the effort required to understand the whole counsel of God as-it-is. Likewise, they seem to have little desire to seek to how best to reconcile these texts in a way that employs a rigorous biblical hermeneutic, that exegetes instead of eisegeting, that does not assume the conclusion and then reason backwards, but allows for them to take every thought captive to Christ & be renewed in their minds and to be instructed by the scriptures. To rephrase, they don't care about steel manning their opponents position.
Here is the last set of arguments from Smith:
It's actually laughable how bad the exegesis is here, but let us gird our loins and finish this refutation strong like Samson! The text doesn't say that he (Samson) would refrain from alcoholic beverages and unclean foods, but it instructs his mother twice to abstain in Judges 13:3-4; 12-14. Moreover, the 'angel of the Lord' is understood to be the preincarnate Christ so we have gone from false prophets uttering false prophecies to the Lord of glory uttering a false prophecy (according to these Mormons anyway) that's quite the leap, it's blasphemous, it's bearing false witness about the Christ they claim to believe in... all to protect their false prophets. Wow.
The conclusion offered by Smith / FAIR is what is actually unbiblical, as we have shown that they have failed to produce a single example of what they set out to prove. I disagree with the 'unspoken conditions' claim, as God does not owe mankind an explanation for what He does or doesn't do. Does he offer it at times? Yes, we have cited examples above with respect to King Zedekiah and the choice that was before him. Likewise, there are also examples where it was not offered. The assumption that all prophecy must be somehow conditional reeks of Open Theism to me. No man is entitled to know the secret will of the Lord, but it is a kindness He occasionally shows the sheep who know His voice and follow Him.
Conclusion:
This kind of gish gallop tactic is a hallmark of modern Mormon apologetics, they (FAIR) are often so long winded & their writings are riddled with all kinds of false statements, assumptions & conclusions that don't really hold up to genuine objective scrutiny. To the point where it becomes a very time consuming endeavor to identify the errors & refute them all. Admittedly, it is an effective method of argumentation from a pragmatic lens, as few will likely care enough to go out of their way to address the content.
In my humble opinion, this article was ultimately a desperate Tu Quoque fallacy, whereby the writers hoped to evade the criticism altogether that Joseph Smith was a false prophet who clearly made false prophecies. I won't let them off the hook that easy though!
Here is one such example from Smith's failed Kirtland Safety Society bank that he falsely prophesied would swallow up all the other Banks:
But the Mormon people won't ever go so far as to admit that this makes Joseph Smith a false prophet, instead they will prop up every possible avenue to give him bottomless validation, infinite room for doubt, all the nuance in the world, but more specifically; immunity from the charge altogether when push comes to shove.
Enough about that though, let's wrap things up here. Connor Smith & those whom he quoted from at FAIR (Stephen O. Smoot, Robert Boylan, and James Stutz) are all dead wrong and they have no case whatsoever. It seems the stereotype about FAIR I mentioned at the beginning of the article held true after all... so I think it warrants a hard earned #MormonMyths meme from yours truly, congratulations!
Enough about that though, let's wrap things up here. Connor Smith & those whom he quoted from at FAIR (Stephen O. Smoot, Robert Boylan, and James Stutz) are all dead wrong and they have no case whatsoever. It seems the stereotype about FAIR I mentioned at the beginning of the article held true after all... so I think it warrants a hard earned #MormonMyths meme from yours truly, congratulations!
Of course, I would be remiss without seeking to point my Mormon readers towards the true & living Christ who can forgive their sins & be made to no longer be at war with God and His Word, but to have peace with Him forever. (Romans 5:1) I would urge each of these men to repent, and to know that the sins of blasphemy, idolatry, and lying are not beyond the amazing grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Please, turn from your sins, abandon Joseph Smith & his false teachings! It's not too late for you yet! But time is short, and you are not promised tomorrow, let today be the day of your salvation!
Thanks for reading!Your word is a lamp to my feet And a light to my path.- Psalm 119:105.
- Mormon Myths
