Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 9

Chapter 8: The Book of Mormon

A FAIR Analysis of: Criticism of Mormonism/Books A work by author: Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson

Chapter 10: The Atonement

Index of Claims in Chapter 9: The Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price

by Michael W. Fordham

There are two things that are key to understanding prophecy: One is an understanding of what prophecy actually is, and second is the interpretation of the specific prophecy itself. Before I respond to the specific allegations by Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson of false prophecy that they say are contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, let's make sure we understand what we are talking about. Therefore, let's examine these two keys of understanding prophecy. What is Prophecy?

It is essential that the reader understand just what prophesy is, and what it is not. McKeever and Johnson do not define for us what they believe to be actual prophecy, which means they could reject any and all utterances of a prophetic nature by the prophet Joseph Smith without having to justify their argument. Since the term "prophecy" is used in connection with Joseph Smith as a prophet, yet McKeever and Johnson repeatedly use the term "prediction" (2/3 of the time they refer to sections 84 & 87 of the D&C as prediction rather than prophecy), we need to ask; is a prophecy the same thing as a prediction?

prophecy n., pl. -cies. 1. the foretelling or prediction of what is to come. 2. something that is declared by a prophet, esp. a divinely inspired prediction, instruction, or exhortation. 3. any prediction or forecast. 4. the action, function, or faculty of a prophet.1

prediction n. 1. the act of predicting. 2. an instance of this; something predicted; prophecy.2

The first "key" in understanding prophecy is that prophecy is by "divine inspiration."3 A prediction differs from a prophecy in that there is no divine inspiration in predictions. A prediction is a "best guess" or a "personal opinion" based upon the information available at the time. So, if Joseph Smith only made "predictions" as McKeever and Johnson repeatedly say,4 then no "divine" word is involved, and they have no argument of false prophesy, and we can disregard anything they say against Joseph Smith, prophecy, the Doctrine and Covenants, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in this matter. Now, I am not naïve, neither are the readers of this article, so it is important to understand that I am not attempting to use a "technical" cop-out to claim the two sections of the Doctrine and Covenants used by these critics are not really prophecy. In fact, while Section 84 is more along the lines of instruction than prophecy, for purposes of this discussion, I can fully agree with McKeever and Johnson that these two sections are prophetic statements made by Joseph Smith. However, I disagree with their interpretations and understanding of history. I only use this as an example to point out the lack of attention to detail, and serious scholarship, used by critics who seem to be more than willing to use their own definitions, not to mention ignoring the actual text, context, and evidence, that would support the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, Jr. This is important in that it gives us an indication of their true motives.

The term "prophesy" can be used in conjunction with false prophets as well as true prophets. So how do we tell the difference? A false prophet is not necessarily one who makes false prophecies. A prophet is a teacher. A false prophet is one who teaches false doctrine. A true prophet is one who teaches true doctrine. So how does Joseph Smith fit this description? Keeping the words of Christ in mind, when he said to his apostles concerning others who were casting out evil spirits, we find a clue in Mark 9:38-40.

And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbade him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.

Anyone who has read the scriptures brought forth by and through Joseph Smith will readily see that he was not against Christ. Anyone who has read other, non-scriptural, writings and sermons of Joseph Smith will readily see that he was not against Christ. Anyone who has read the writings of those who personally knew Joseph Smith will readily see that he was not against Christ. Anyone who knows the historical fact that Joseph Smith gave his life for his belief in, and devotion to, the Savior knows that he was not against Christ. Since Joseph Smith was not against the Savior, then he was "on our part," as Christ said. So why then, are men like McKeever and Johnson, who proclaim themselves Christians, who claim to follow Christ, so eager to malign Joseph Smith? Most critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints frequently judge Joseph Smith's prophecies with a standard that is just as damaging to Biblical prophecies, thereby showing a double standard of interpretation. They seem willing to allow any possible explanation and exception for Biblical prophecies, but none for those of Joseph Smith. Critics don't seem to realize that the standards they use to judge Joseph Smith can also be used to attack the Biblical prophets and Jesus Christ. In fact, McKeever and Johnson give a perfect example of this, which I will point out shortly. The Rules of Interpreting Prophecy

The second "key" of understanding prophecy is the interpretation of prophecy. In determining whether or not a prophecy has come true, there are many factors to consider. Anyone who takes time to study prophecy in the Bible would know that there are some rules of prophetic interpretation to keep in mind when understanding prophecy. Michael T. Griffith has given a list of these rules.

  1. Almost all prophecy is conditional to one degree or another, even if this is not stated in the prophecy itself (which is often the case).
  2. In many cases human actions and choices can alter, postpone, or prevent the fulfillment of prophecy.
  3. A prophecy is not always telling us what will happen, but what could happen under certain circumstances.
  4. A prophet can misunderstand the timetable for a prophecy's fulfillment (this, of course, does not invalidate the prophecy itself).
  5. A prophet can be mistaken about certain details of a prophecy but correct with regard to its central message.
  6. A prophecy can apply to more than one occurrence or time period, i.e., it can have dual application.
  7. A prophecy's fulfillment can be intended to take place in the spirit world or during the millennium, even if this is not stated in the prophecy itself.
  8. The fulfillment of prophecy can go unobserved and/or unrecorded.
  9. A prophecy can contain rhetorical overstatements. For example, a prophecy might read that "every single house" in a certain town will be "leveled to the ground," when what is really meant is that the town will suffer heavy destruction.
 10. Such terms and expressions as "soon," "quickly," "in a little while," "shortly," etc., are often given from the Lord's perspective of time--so that "soon," for example, might turn out to be a very long time by our reckoning.
 11. The text of a prophecy can undergo alteration to the point that it no longer reflects the original intent of the prophecy.5

Much has been written about Biblical prophecies that appear not to have come to pass, thus showing them false. However, if the rules of prophetic interpretation are employed, the Bible can be shown not to have any false prophecies. One example that would cause critics to exclaim a false prophecy in the Bible if they used the same standard of interpretation as they do with Joseph Smith, can be found in 2 Kings 20:1-7.

Here the prophet Isaiah visited Hezekiah, who was "sick unto death," and said to him, "Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live." Hezekiah, in prayer, reminded the Lord of all of his good works. The Lord, then, responded mercifully to his plea. He changed his mind and instructed Isaiah to go back to Hezekiah and tell him that his prayers had been heard; the Lord would heal him and he would live for fifteen more years. Was Isaiah any less a prophet of God because the Lord told him something would happen, and it didn't, for whatever reason?6

According to the way McKeever and Johnson interpret the prophecies in the Doctrine and Covenants, the illness Hezekiah had should have killed him, and rather quickly since he was "sick unto death." However, he lived another 15 years. Thus, according to the apparent rules by which they interpret prophecy, Isaiah was a false prophet. They would so judge Joseph Smith, and as we shall see, they do. However, by observing the rules of interpretation and correct context, the circumstances of this particular prophecy changed. Hezekiah pleaded with the Lord, and the Lord was merciful. In addition, we do not know what kind of sickness he had. Maybe the original intent of Isaiah's words was that Hezekiah would die, but not right away. The Bible does not word it to that effect, but then, we do not have the original manuscripts which to compare and see. So, according to rule number 2, this is not a false prophecy.

I do not believe the Bible contains any false prophecies. It is only a matter of interpretation. Also, I do not wish to dwell on several Biblical examples since this is not a study of the prophetic statements in the Bible. The point is, there are more Biblical prophecies that appear, without investigation, not to have been fulfilled, but for the purpose of this discussion, it is not necessary to detail them, only to show that while upholding any and all Biblical prophecies, McKeever and Johnson use a double standard in interpreting Joseph Smith's prophecies.

General Comments

I find it interesting that McKeever and Johnson do not seem very interested in specifics as they only make general comments. This is usually indicative that the authors are not interested in serious research, disregard evidence, and are willing to accept any explanation, true or not, that would dismiss the prophecy or prophet they do not accept. First, I'll respond to some of their general comments, then I'll be specific about why they are just plain wrong about their accusations of false prophecy.

McKeever & Johnson: Although there are several questionable predictions made in the Doctrine and Covenants…

I can't help but wonder what these "several questionable predictions" are.7 Notice that M&J claim there are "several" and only regard them as "predictions," not prophecy.

McKeever & Johnson: …two that seem to stand out from the rest come from sections 84 and 87.

If these are the two that "stand out," then by all means let's examine them. However, if these two are vindicated as authentic prophecy, then M&J should recognize, by their own statement, that the "several" other reasons they have against these other "predictions" would have even less ground upon which to disregard the prophecies of Joseph Smith. That being the case, I wonder if McKeever and Johnson would be willing to concede to even the possibility of divine inspiration (prophecy) attributed to Joseph Smith.

McKeever & Johnson: The writings from those who lived at the time of Smith's revelation show that the Mormons were anticipating the imminent construction of this building.

Yes they did. But what does this prove? The people, who were living at the time of Christ, fully expected Christ to return during their lifetimes. Since that did not happen, does that invalidate what Jesus said? According to McKeever and Johnson it should. Luckily, as Latter-day Saints, we do not use a double standard, and therefore we are willing to analyze the prophetic utterances of Joseph Smith the same way we do those of Jesus Christ and other prophets.

McKeever & Johnson: Despite the fact that the Saints were forced to leave the area around a year after the prediction was given, they still hoped to return and see the prophecy come to fruition.

Actually, we still do.

McKeever & Johnson: . . . Joseph Fielding Smith, later conceded that the prophecy could not come to pass in the way many earlier Saints had believed it would.

Joseph Fielding Smith "conceded" nothing. Joseph Smith said so himself. My rebuttal on this section contains a more complete record of what Joseph Smith actually said. This is ignored by McKeever and Johnson, as well as the rest of our critics.

McKeever & Johnson: Mormon historian Richard S. Van Wagoner noted Smith's "prophetic failures" regarding Zion and the return of Christ led Sidney Rigdon, Smith's right-hand man, to eventually lose faith in the LDS prophet.

Actually, Sidney Rigdon became disassociated with the church when he was not chosen to be the leader after the murder of Joseph and Hyrum. Since Joseph Smith made no false prophecies, it had nothing to do Joseph Smith's "prophetic failures." In addition, critics such as McKeever and Johnson ignore the statements Joseph Smith made concerning the Saints being driven out of Missouri, going to the Rocky Mountains, and that the Center Place of Zion (Missouri) would not be settled until another time. I will cover this material later in this chapter.

And so it goes. McKeever and Johnson have no real argument. They have to invent history, ignore facts, and use a double standard in order to refute Joseph Smith. Specific Comments Concerning Section 84

Now that we have a general background and understanding of what we are talking about, and a general idea of how McKeever and Johnson argue against Joseph Smith's prophecies, let's look specifically at sections 84 and 87 of the Doctrine and Covenants and see if they contain false prophecy, or if Joseph Smith is vindicated as a prophet, seer, and revelator.

There are two objections McKeever and Johnson give as to why they disregard section 84 as prophecy. First, is the term "this generation," and second is the fact that the Saints were forced out of the area, which, according to critics in general, indicates establishing Zion at that time and building the temple was not really God-ordained and thus it is a false prophecy. There are major flaws with both of these conclusions.

The basic argument McKeever and Johnson use to claim D&C 84 contains false prophecy is that it states, "this generation" will not pass until a temple is built on that site. Since this revelation was given in 1832, and no one is alive today from then, they, along with like-minded critics, are quick to classify section 84 as a false prophecy. They also claim that since Joseph Smith uttered it, he must be a false prophet. This is the perfect example I mentioned of a double standard of interpretation critics use against Joseph Smith, for Jesus Christ used the very same terminology. Let's look at what Jesus himself said to the people of his day concerning prophecies of His second coming. Matthew 24:34 quotes Christ as saying, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Luke 21:32 repeats this prophecy.