Russell Ashdown's old Website (available on archive.org) had many papers refuting the nonsense of Mormonism "Research" Ministry (as well as CARM; James White and others). This particular paper, as it refutes a common objection against LDS temple worship, shows that McKeever et al. cannot be taken seriously on issues about the Bible and LDS issues; for further proof, see my review of McKeever's debate with James Holt on LDS soteriology which shows McKeever's exegetical abilities are as bankrupt as his false Protestant theology.
My Response to "The Sin of Jeroboam" By Bill McKeever
In this article, Bill commits the fallacy of false analogy by asserting that the LDS church is doing what Jeroboam in the Old Testament did. Jeroboam established places of worship that did not include Jerusalem and instituted idol worship. He claims we are commiting the "sin of Jeroboam because
"the LDS Church erecting temples in places all over the world. If temple worship were to be restored as Joseph Smith said, it would seem likely that the rules surrounding it would be restored as well. If is not the same, the Mormons cannot claim their temple worship is a true "restoration."
That Jerusalem was the recognized place of temple worship among God's people is not disputed. The Bible clearly states that it was God's desire that His sanctuary be built there (1 Kings 11:36; 14:21), and Jesus undoubtedly held to this position when he confronted the Samaritan woman in John 4."
I am not aware of any scripture that says that temples could not be built all over the world. Now it is true that one main temple was built in those days but that has to do with the fact that Israel was located in one small geographical spot on the globe. God wanted a temple built there and it was. This does not mean that God could not desire to have other temples built in other locations when the need arose. Temples are built where God's people are. God owns the whole world, not just Jerusalem.
Looks like Bill is engaging in the fallacies of Existential Fallacy: based on an unproved assumption and Subjectivism: asserting a proposition as true simply because one wishes or believes it to be true.
Bill states:
"The Samaritans had built a temple on Mount Gerizim after the Syrians conquered the Northern Kingdom in 721 B.C. Although the building itself was destroyed around 130 B.C., they continued to worship there. The woman defended her people's actions when she told Jesus, "Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship." In an amazing response, Jesus not only acknowledged that the Samaritan's place of worship was incorrect, but that true worship was a matter of the heart, not location."
Jesus did not acknowledge that that the the Samaritan's place was incorrect. He did not even mention the issue to the woman. The woman says "and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship" apparently believing and assuming that since she knew Jesus was a Jew, that he said this. Nowhere in John 4 does Jesus actually made this claim. The fact is Jesus did not say that in Jerusalem was the only place but teaches that its not where one worships God but how one worships God as Bill admits. It is to be done in spirit and in truth. Though the temple is a place that one can worship God, its is not the only place.
So Jesus clearly states that the view among some that Jerusalem was the only place is false, so I don't know how this helps Bill's case but actually establishes our case that temples can be built anywhere. Fact is ancient Jews did build do what we do. William Hamblin in a response to Anti-Mormon James White called "Tract made without evidence" states:
"White informs us that God generously "allowed His people to build a single temple, located in Jerusalem" but that "never did God allow His people to build multiple temples." White's use of the word allowed to describe God's command to build temples is a serious distortion. Temple building is one of the premier commands from God to Israel, as the vast portions of the Old Testament focusing on temple building and worship clearly demonstrates. (I am assuming the functional equivalency of tabernacle and temple, which I also assume White will not dispute.)
Here is a list of the major Israelite cultic centers, shrines, locations for the tabernacle, and temples, which were in operation during biblical times, based on archaeological and/or textual evidence"
Mosaic Tabernacle {13 Century B.C}
Gilgal 13 Century B.C
Ebal Century B.C
Shechem 12 Century B.C
Shiloh 12 to 11 Century B.C
Kirjath-jearim 11 Century B.C
Gibeon 11 to 10 Century B.C
Megiddo 10 Century B.C
Jerusalem 10 to 1 Century B.C
Arad 10 to 7 Century B.C
Lachish 10 to 8 Century B.C
Dan 10 to 8 Century B.C
Bethel 9 Century B.C
Beer-Sheba 8 to 7 Century B.C
Elephantine/Aswan 6 to 4 Century B.C
Shechem/Mt. Gerizim (Samaritan)
Leontopolis/Tel Yehudia by Onias (near Heliopolis) 160 B.C to 73 B.C. which replaced/united several other Jewish temples in Egypt
It is quite clear there is more going on here than White's simplistic claim that "never did God allow His people to build multiple temples" would lead us to believe. God certainly did allow it, since it clearly happened. Whether he commanded it, or accepted their worship as authentic, or tolerated apostate temples unwillingly, or viewed them as abominations is a different question. But many, if not most Israelites apparently believed that multiple temples were possible."
Bill then makes this useless statement:
"Like Jeroboam, Joseph Smith instituted the worship of a God foreign to that recognized throughout Christianity. Neither Jew nor Christian ever worshipped a God that fits the description given by Smith. They worship of a finite "exalted" human being that evolved to the level of deity has always been considered blasphemy among God's people."
Among the fallacies that Bill asserts here is Existential Fallacy: based on an unproved assumption; Subjectivism: asserting a proposition as true simply because one wishes or believes it to be true; Paradigm or cultural fallacy: taking one's own encapsulated world view, or system of thought (paradigm), or culture, as the standard by which all other paradigms may be judged; andRed herring: introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion. Attempting to support one proposition by arguing for a different one entirely, or dodging the main argument by going off on a tangent.
Bill does not give any proof that no Jew or Christian ever worshipped a God that fits the description given by Joseph Smith. In fact they actually did but since this issues are a red herring, in that they have nothing to do with the issue at hand, I will not bother with showing the mountains of evidence to the contrary that many did, especially in the First and Second Centuries. I will just show one quote from a Non-LDS source and move on. Cited from Stephen E. Robinson's book "Are Mormons Christian" in chapter 7.
"The God of the Hebrew Bible is for the most part an anthropomorphic and anthropopathic being, that is, a God who has the form and emotions of humans...The God of the philosophers is a different sort of being altogether: abstract (the Prime Mover, the First Cause, the Mind or Soul of the Universe, etc.), immutable and relatively unconcerned with the affairs of humanity...Popular piety does not need or want an immutable and shapeless Prime Mover; it wants a God who reveals himself to people, listens to prayer, and can be grasped in human terms. This is the God of the Shema, the Bible, and the liturgy. This is the God of practically all the Hebrew and Aramaic, and some of the Greek, Jewish literature of antiquity. It is not, however, the God of the philosophers." (Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, vol. 7 of the Library of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987), p. 86, 87.)
It should be noted that the God that modern day Christians worship is based primarily on the God of the philosophers. Also Bill states that we worship a "finite exalted being" I don't know how Bill uses the word finite but it should be understood that we worship an all knowing, all powerful being that has a body of flesh and bone. There is nothing God can't accomplish so if this means God is finite then fine. So I will respond by saying we do not worship a finite God who is only a spirit.
Bill then asserts:
"Like Jeroboam, Mormonism ordains unqualified people to the priesthood. Joseph Smith claimed John the Baptist appeared to him and Oliver Cowdery on the banks of the Susquehanna River in 1829 and conferred upon them the "priesthood of Aaron." Again, if Smith wishes to claim this priesthood is the same as that of old, he must also accept the qualifications associated with it. If it is not the same, it is not "restored."
This issue actually hurts Bill and the non-LDS christians. The scriptures are very clear that the Aaronic Priesthood is a everlasting priesthood and would not be done away.
Exodus 40:15: "And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations."
Numbers 25:13:" And he shall have it, and his seed after him, [even] the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel."
Ezekiel chapters 40-47 speaks on building the house of the Lord in Jerusalem in the last days,. Priests after the order of Aaron, and blood sacrifices being offered to the LORD! Where will these Levitical priests get their authority? "No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron" (Hebrews 5:4). Aaron was called of God by a prophet. These keys would of necessity be upon the earth, as well as a prophet to call these levitical priests to their service. One may think what one wants concerning these thoughts, but ignoring them will not make them go away. If these prophecies are not to be fulfilled, then Isaiah, Malachi and Ezekiel are false prophets. So we see that the Aaronic Priesthood was not done away with Christ. There would be people who held the Aaronic Priesthood in the last days.
Now its true that the priesthood was changed and with the fulfillment of the Law of Moses, one does not have to be of the lineage of Aaron to hold the priesthood but it is still to be part of the Lord's church and his people are expected to use it.
Bill claims that "it is unthinkable that John the Baptist, described by the Lord Himself as being the greatest prophet born among women (Luke 7:28), would ordain Smith to such a priesthood."
This is just his opinion on things and and immaterial. It does not matter if Bill thinks that it is unthinkable as the Lord really does not care what Bill thinks in "unthinkable" Bill quotes Numbers 3:10 that says that one has to be a son of Aaron to have that Priesthood but that is a qualification in the Old Testament that does not apply today.
Since much of the function of the Aaronic Priestood under the law of Moses was done away with the atonement, new functions must have been given to it since it is still here. We believe that today, one does not have to be of the lineage of Aaron to hold it. Now some may disagree and that is fine but since they don't see this everlasting priesthood to exist anymore, then really it comes to down to their fallacy of Unobtainable perfection: your idea has faults, so I reject it, even if it's better than what we have now.
Bill then says:
Most Mormons, when asked what tribe they belong to, say that they are of the tribe of Ephraim or Manasseh. How they arrived at this is purely speculation, and even 10th LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith seems to admit there is no absolute certainty in such conclusions. He wrote:
"The Book of Mormon states that Joseph Smith the Prophet was a descendant of Joseph, son of Jacob. By revelation we learn also that he is of the tribe of Ephraim, but it is evident that he also had some Gentile blood in him, for it is written in the Book of Mormon, that it came forth, "by way of the Gentile,"2 and it came by Joseph Smith. It is reasonable, therefore, to understand that we one and all have come through a mixed relation-ship, and that the blood of Ephraim and also of Manasseh could be in the veins of many of us, likewise the blood of others of the twelve tribes of Israel, and that none of us had come through the ages with clear exclusive descent from father to son through any one of the tribes" (Answers to Gospel Questions, 3:63,64).
Unlike the LDS method mentioned above, the tribes of Israel were not distinguished by way of "revelation."
What Joseph Fielding Smith said here is not what Bill claims by asserting that there is no certainty to say what tribe one is from. If with mixing, the blood of one line can predominate. I am mostly of English descent but I do have some blood from other places as well but I am still predominately English.
It is true that the tribes back then were not distinguished generally by revelation but there was no real need as they knew what tribe they belonged to already. When the house of Israel was scattered, they lost their identity. Its is common knowledge that if one takes people outside the culture they were raised in, sooner or later they or their children will forget their old culture and embrass the new one that become accustomed to or are raised in. Hence revelation would be required.
Bill then states:
To protect the rights of those who had a legitimate inheritance in the newly conquered Promised Land, genealogical records were kept. This practice also served another very important function as explained by Christian theologian R.K. Harrison:
"Genealogies also served a fundamentally important purpose when the hereditary Aaronic Priesthood was established. Pentateuchal tradition uniformly regarded the priesthood as restricted to the tribe of Levi and the house of Aaron in particular, and one had to meet these conditions to be eligible for the priestly service of the sanctuary in the tabernacle and the later temples. To be able to trace one's descent from Aaron was therefore mandatory for the Levitical priests, and in the time of Josephus every priest was expected to be able to prove such a descent" (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 2:425).
LDS members have no problems with geneaologies. Nobody on the planet does a better job and is more involved with that than the LDS church. The problem is that existing records for all people and groups on the earth do not exist that extend all the way back to Jacob and his sons so its impossible for a person by geneological means to trace their line back that far. The only way one can know what tribe they are literal decendents or have been adopted into is by revelation. The question that needs to be asked since Bill is disagreeing with us is can he pick out who is from what tribe. Can Bill share with us who is what tribe and who is not. If not than once again Bill is committing unobtainable perfection.
McKeever has given no evidence to show that Jerusalem is the only place where a temple could be built. He has not shown that the LDS church and its members can't hold the Aaronic Priesthood since we are not under the Law of Moses today. He simply has neglected to look at these issues in a more complete way. In short, this article was based on on the foundation of the fallacy of Card stacking and Fallacy of Exclusion: Using selected evidence to make one's side look favorable, or omitting evidence that would undermine an argument.
My Response to "The Sin of Jeroboam" By Bill McKeever
In this article, Bill commits the fallacy of false analogy by asserting that the LDS church is doing what Jeroboam in the Old Testament did. Jeroboam established places of worship that did not include Jerusalem and instituted idol worship. He claims we are commiting the "sin of Jeroboam because
"the LDS Church erecting temples in places all over the world. If temple worship were to be restored as Joseph Smith said, it would seem likely that the rules surrounding it would be restored as well. If is not the same, the Mormons cannot claim their temple worship is a true "restoration."
That Jerusalem was the recognized place of temple worship among God's people is not disputed. The Bible clearly states that it was God's desire that His sanctuary be built there (1 Kings 11:36; 14:21), and Jesus undoubtedly held to this position when he confronted the Samaritan woman in John 4."
I am not aware of any scripture that says that temples could not be built all over the world. Now it is true that one main temple was built in those days but that has to do with the fact that Israel was located in one small geographical spot on the globe. God wanted a temple built there and it was. This does not mean that God could not desire to have other temples built in other locations when the need arose. Temples are built where God's people are. God owns the whole world, not just Jerusalem.
Looks like Bill is engaging in the fallacies of Existential Fallacy: based on an unproved assumption and Subjectivism: asserting a proposition as true simply because one wishes or believes it to be true.
Bill states:
"The Samaritans had built a temple on Mount Gerizim after the Syrians conquered the Northern Kingdom in 721 B.C. Although the building itself was destroyed around 130 B.C., they continued to worship there. The woman defended her people's actions when she told Jesus, "Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship." In an amazing response, Jesus not only acknowledged that the Samaritan's place of worship was incorrect, but that true worship was a matter of the heart, not location."
Jesus did not acknowledge that that the the Samaritan's place was incorrect. He did not even mention the issue to the woman. The woman says "and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship" apparently believing and assuming that since she knew Jesus was a Jew, that he said this. Nowhere in John 4 does Jesus actually made this claim. The fact is Jesus did not say that in Jerusalem was the only place but teaches that its not where one worships God but how one worships God as Bill admits. It is to be done in spirit and in truth. Though the temple is a place that one can worship God, its is not the only place.
So Jesus clearly states that the view among some that Jerusalem was the only place is false, so I don't know how this helps Bill's case but actually establishes our case that temples can be built anywhere. Fact is ancient Jews did build do what we do. William Hamblin in a response to Anti-Mormon James White called "Tract made without evidence" states:
"White informs us that God generously "allowed His people to build a single temple, located in Jerusalem" but that "never did God allow His people to build multiple temples." White's use of the word allowed to describe God's command to build temples is a serious distortion. Temple building is one of the premier commands from God to Israel, as the vast portions of the Old Testament focusing on temple building and worship clearly demonstrates. (I am assuming the functional equivalency of tabernacle and temple, which I also assume White will not dispute.)
Here is a list of the major Israelite cultic centers, shrines, locations for the tabernacle, and temples, which were in operation during biblical times, based on archaeological and/or textual evidence"
Mosaic Tabernacle {13 Century B.C}
Gilgal 13 Century B.C
Ebal Century B.C
Shechem 12 Century B.C
Shiloh 12 to 11 Century B.C
Kirjath-jearim 11 Century B.C
Gibeon 11 to 10 Century B.C
Megiddo 10 Century B.C
Jerusalem 10 to 1 Century B.C
Arad 10 to 7 Century B.C
Lachish 10 to 8 Century B.C
Dan 10 to 8 Century B.C
Bethel 9 Century B.C
Beer-Sheba 8 to 7 Century B.C
Elephantine/Aswan 6 to 4 Century B.C
Shechem/Mt. Gerizim (Samaritan)
Leontopolis/Tel Yehudia by Onias (near Heliopolis) 160 B.C to 73 B.C. which replaced/united several other Jewish temples in Egypt
It is quite clear there is more going on here than White's simplistic claim that "never did God allow His people to build multiple temples" would lead us to believe. God certainly did allow it, since it clearly happened. Whether he commanded it, or accepted their worship as authentic, or tolerated apostate temples unwillingly, or viewed them as abominations is a different question. But many, if not most Israelites apparently believed that multiple temples were possible."
Bill then makes this useless statement:
"Like Jeroboam, Joseph Smith instituted the worship of a God foreign to that recognized throughout Christianity. Neither Jew nor Christian ever worshipped a God that fits the description given by Smith. They worship of a finite "exalted" human being that evolved to the level of deity has always been considered blasphemy among God's people."
Among the fallacies that Bill asserts here is Existential Fallacy: based on an unproved assumption; Subjectivism: asserting a proposition as true simply because one wishes or believes it to be true; Paradigm or cultural fallacy: taking one's own encapsulated world view, or system of thought (paradigm), or culture, as the standard by which all other paradigms may be judged; andRed herring: introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone's attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion. Attempting to support one proposition by arguing for a different one entirely, or dodging the main argument by going off on a tangent.
Bill does not give any proof that no Jew or Christian ever worshipped a God that fits the description given by Joseph Smith. In fact they actually did but since this issues are a red herring, in that they have nothing to do with the issue at hand, I will not bother with showing the mountains of evidence to the contrary that many did, especially in the First and Second Centuries. I will just show one quote from a Non-LDS source and move on. Cited from Stephen E. Robinson's book "Are Mormons Christian" in chapter 7.
"The God of the Hebrew Bible is for the most part an anthropomorphic and anthropopathic being, that is, a God who has the form and emotions of humans...The God of the philosophers is a different sort of being altogether: abstract (the Prime Mover, the First Cause, the Mind or Soul of the Universe, etc.), immutable and relatively unconcerned with the affairs of humanity...Popular piety does not need or want an immutable and shapeless Prime Mover; it wants a God who reveals himself to people, listens to prayer, and can be grasped in human terms. This is the God of the Shema, the Bible, and the liturgy. This is the God of practically all the Hebrew and Aramaic, and some of the Greek, Jewish literature of antiquity. It is not, however, the God of the philosophers." (Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, vol. 7 of the Library of Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987), p. 86, 87.)
It should be noted that the God that modern day Christians worship is based primarily on the God of the philosophers. Also Bill states that we worship a "finite exalted being" I don't know how Bill uses the word finite but it should be understood that we worship an all knowing, all powerful being that has a body of flesh and bone. There is nothing God can't accomplish so if this means God is finite then fine. So I will respond by saying we do not worship a finite God who is only a spirit.
Bill then asserts:
"Like Jeroboam, Mormonism ordains unqualified people to the priesthood. Joseph Smith claimed John the Baptist appeared to him and Oliver Cowdery on the banks of the Susquehanna River in 1829 and conferred upon them the "priesthood of Aaron." Again, if Smith wishes to claim this priesthood is the same as that of old, he must also accept the qualifications associated with it. If it is not the same, it is not "restored."
This issue actually hurts Bill and the non-LDS christians. The scriptures are very clear that the Aaronic Priesthood is a everlasting priesthood and would not be done away.
Exodus 40:15: "And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations."
Numbers 25:13:" And he shall have it, and his seed after him, [even] the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel."
Ezekiel chapters 40-47 speaks on building the house of the Lord in Jerusalem in the last days,. Priests after the order of Aaron, and blood sacrifices being offered to the LORD! Where will these Levitical priests get their authority? "No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron" (Hebrews 5:4). Aaron was called of God by a prophet. These keys would of necessity be upon the earth, as well as a prophet to call these levitical priests to their service. One may think what one wants concerning these thoughts, but ignoring them will not make them go away. If these prophecies are not to be fulfilled, then Isaiah, Malachi and Ezekiel are false prophets. So we see that the Aaronic Priesthood was not done away with Christ. There would be people who held the Aaronic Priesthood in the last days.
Now its true that the priesthood was changed and with the fulfillment of the Law of Moses, one does not have to be of the lineage of Aaron to hold the priesthood but it is still to be part of the Lord's church and his people are expected to use it.
Bill claims that "it is unthinkable that John the Baptist, described by the Lord Himself as being the greatest prophet born among women (Luke 7:28), would ordain Smith to such a priesthood."
This is just his opinion on things and and immaterial. It does not matter if Bill thinks that it is unthinkable as the Lord really does not care what Bill thinks in "unthinkable" Bill quotes Numbers 3:10 that says that one has to be a son of Aaron to have that Priesthood but that is a qualification in the Old Testament that does not apply today.
Since much of the function of the Aaronic Priestood under the law of Moses was done away with the atonement, new functions must have been given to it since it is still here. We believe that today, one does not have to be of the lineage of Aaron to hold it. Now some may disagree and that is fine but since they don't see this everlasting priesthood to exist anymore, then really it comes to down to their fallacy of Unobtainable perfection: your idea has faults, so I reject it, even if it's better than what we have now.
Bill then says:
Most Mormons, when asked what tribe they belong to, say that they are of the tribe of Ephraim or Manasseh. How they arrived at this is purely speculation, and even 10th LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith seems to admit there is no absolute certainty in such conclusions. He wrote:
"The Book of Mormon states that Joseph Smith the Prophet was a descendant of Joseph, son of Jacob. By revelation we learn also that he is of the tribe of Ephraim, but it is evident that he also had some Gentile blood in him, for it is written in the Book of Mormon, that it came forth, "by way of the Gentile,"2 and it came by Joseph Smith. It is reasonable, therefore, to understand that we one and all have come through a mixed relation-ship, and that the blood of Ephraim and also of Manasseh could be in the veins of many of us, likewise the blood of others of the twelve tribes of Israel, and that none of us had come through the ages with clear exclusive descent from father to son through any one of the tribes" (Answers to Gospel Questions, 3:63,64).
Unlike the LDS method mentioned above, the tribes of Israel were not distinguished by way of "revelation."
What Joseph Fielding Smith said here is not what Bill claims by asserting that there is no certainty to say what tribe one is from. If with mixing, the blood of one line can predominate. I am mostly of English descent but I do have some blood from other places as well but I am still predominately English.
It is true that the tribes back then were not distinguished generally by revelation but there was no real need as they knew what tribe they belonged to already. When the house of Israel was scattered, they lost their identity. Its is common knowledge that if one takes people outside the culture they were raised in, sooner or later they or their children will forget their old culture and embrass the new one that become accustomed to or are raised in. Hence revelation would be required.
Bill then states:
To protect the rights of those who had a legitimate inheritance in the newly conquered Promised Land, genealogical records were kept. This practice also served another very important function as explained by Christian theologian R.K. Harrison:
"Genealogies also served a fundamentally important purpose when the hereditary Aaronic Priesthood was established. Pentateuchal tradition uniformly regarded the priesthood as restricted to the tribe of Levi and the house of Aaron in particular, and one had to meet these conditions to be eligible for the priestly service of the sanctuary in the tabernacle and the later temples. To be able to trace one's descent from Aaron was therefore mandatory for the Levitical priests, and in the time of Josephus every priest was expected to be able to prove such a descent" (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 2:425).
LDS members have no problems with geneaologies. Nobody on the planet does a better job and is more involved with that than the LDS church. The problem is that existing records for all people and groups on the earth do not exist that extend all the way back to Jacob and his sons so its impossible for a person by geneological means to trace their line back that far. The only way one can know what tribe they are literal decendents or have been adopted into is by revelation. The question that needs to be asked since Bill is disagreeing with us is can he pick out who is from what tribe. Can Bill share with us who is what tribe and who is not. If not than once again Bill is committing unobtainable perfection.
McKeever has given no evidence to show that Jerusalem is the only place where a temple could be built. He has not shown that the LDS church and its members can't hold the Aaronic Priesthood since we are not under the Law of Moses today. He simply has neglected to look at these issues in a more complete way. In short, this article was based on on the foundation of the fallacy of Card stacking and Fallacy of Exclusion: Using selected evidence to make one's side look favorable, or omitting evidence that would undermine an argument.
