Recently, a critic has attempted to respond to Tad Callister’s October 2017 General Conference talk. A mutual friend sent me their comments.The critic's comments will be in red; my response will be in black.
Mr. Callister's points are numbered and in quotes. My response follows each point.
1) "First, the critics must explain how Joseph Smith, a 23-year-old farm boy with limited education, created a book with hundreds of unique names and places, as well as detailed stories and events."
RESPONSE
First, 23-years old isn't a "boy", it's a man. A man whose letters, while spelling and grammatically unrefined, was articulate and eloquent.
The letters became more articulate in later life; his earlier letters were weaker, grammatically. The 1832 account of the First Vision comes to mind.
Second, the "hundreds of unique names and places" aren't unique. Most are just bastardized Biblical names. Some are plagiarized from other sources.
Actually, the onomasticon of the Book of Mormon is one of its strongest supports of its historicity. Firstly, on the claim that many names in the Book of Mormon are bastardized Biblical names, let us focus on the name "Mosiah," often said to be bastardised forms of Moses and Isaiah.
In the Hebrew Bible, there is a term מושׁיע (moshiah). It occurs 27 times in the Old Testament, but is never transliterated in the KJV. Notice how it bears a strong semblance to Book of Mormon "Mosiah."
The non-LDS scholar, John Sawyer, in his article, "What was a mosiah?" in Vetus Testamentum, vol. 15, fasc. 4 (Oct., 1965), pp. 475-86 discussed this term in some detail. He concluded his study thusly:
It is a word like "victor" or "saviour" or "deliverer"
(the themes of physical and spiritual deliverance and salvation are central to the book of Mosiah)
The term was used in antiquity to refer to a hero appointed by God, who delivers an oppressed and afflicted people from injustice.
(compare this with Benjamin, Zeniff, Alma, Gideon, Ammon, and Mosiah II in the book of Mosiah)
The term designated a unique class or office in ancient Israel.
(compare this with the King Mosiah [father of Benjamin] and Mosiah II [son of Benjamin])
The term was later applied to God himself
(one of the messages of the book of Mosiah is that, while God designates representatives, ultimately, it is He Himself who is the saviour [Mosiah 11:23; 24:21; 25:16])
Those in danger or those who are unjustly oppressed "cry out" for help and receive deliverance from a moshiah
(compare the people of Zeniff [Mosiah 9:16-18]; the people of Limhi [Mosiah 11:23-25; 21:14-16] and the people of Alma [Mosiah 23:27-29; 24:10-17] who all cry out for deliverance in such a manner)
This deliverance is frequently accomplished in a non-violent manner
(E.g., Mosiah 24:19-25 where the Lord causes a deep sleep to come upon the Lamanites so that Alma's people may escape in peace)
Far from being a simplistic meshing together of “Isaiah” and “Moses,” Book of Mormon Mosiah fits the Old World/Hebrew meaning of Moshiah. Furthermore, the book of Mosiah itself, in its narrative structure, has all the meanings of this rare Hebrew word that modern biblical scholarship has only recently uncovered.
Such complexity was beyond Joseph Smith’s capabilities in the late 1820s when he dictated the Book of Mormon text.
Furthermore, here are two other unique names in the Book of Mormon which argue for its authenticity, "Zarahemla" and "Mulek":
Zarahemla
Hebrew זרע (zerah) means “seed” (alt. offspring/progeny) and חמל (chemla) means “compassion/pity.”
Zarahemla has a valid Hebrew etymology, meaning “seed of compassion/pity.” As with "Jershon" the Hebrew meaning plays a role in the narrative of the Book of Mormon that Joseph Smith et al. could not have faked.
" . . . and we returned, those of us that were spared, to the land of Zarahemla" (Mosiah 9:2)
" . . . and then would our brethren have been spared, and they would not have been burned in that great city Zarahemla" (3 Nephi 8:24)
Now when Ammon and his brethren saw this work of destruction among those whom they so dearly beloved, and among those who had so dearly beloved them — for they were treated as though they were angels sent from God to save them from everlasting destruction — therefore, when Ammon and his brethren saw this great work of destruction, they were moved with compassion, and they said unto the king: Let us gather together this people of the Lord, and let us go down to the land of Zarahemla [alt.the land of the-seed-of-compassion] to our brethren the Nephites, and flee out of the hands of our enemies, that we be not destroyed. (Alma 27:4-5)
And now behold, I have somewhat to say concerning the people of Ammon, who, in the beginning, were Lamanites; but by Ammon and his brethren, or rather by the power and word of God, they had been converted unto the Lord; and they had been brought down into the land of Zarahemla, and had ever since been protected by the Nephites. And because of their oath they had been kept from taking up arms against their brethren; for they had taken an oath that they never would shed blood more; and according to their oath they would have perished; yea, they would have suffered themselves to have fallen into the hands of their brethren, had it not been for the pity and the exceeding love which Ammon and his brethren had had for them. And for this cause they were brought down into the land of Zarahemla; and they ever had been protected by the Nephites [cf. Alma 27:23-24]. But it came to pass that when they [the converted Lamanites] saw the danger, and the many afflictions and tribulations which the Nephites bore for them, they were moved with compassion and were desirous to take up arms in the defence of their country. (Alma 53:10-13)
Not only does Zarahemla have a perfectly reasonable Hebrew etymology, the Book of Mormon engages in wordplays in its narrative structure that plays off its Hebrew meaning. This only makes sense if the Book of Mormon text we have is a translation of a record influenced by Hebrew.
Mulek
“Mulek” in the Printer’s Manuscript of the Book of Mormon was spelt Muloch and “Mulok” in printed editions from 1830 to 1852. The root in Hebrew, however, would be the same (*MLK מלך)
The Book of Mormon informs us that one of King Zedekiah’s sons survived the Babylonian Conquest of Jerusalem and fled to the New World:
Now the land south was called Lehi and the land north was called Mulek, which was after the son of Zedekiah; for the Lord did bring Mulek into the land north, and Lehi into the land south. (Helaman 6:10)
And now will you dispute that Jerusalem was not destroyed? Will ye say that the sons of Zedekiah were not slain, all except it were Mulek? Yea, and do ye not behold that the seed of Zedekiah are with us, and they were driven out of the land of Jerusalem? . . . (Helaman 8:21)
There is a possibility “Mulek” appears in the Old Testament. Firstly, a note on Hebrew names:
A name that contains the “divine element” (‘el; yah[u]) is called a theophoric (e.g., Isaiah—the iah is a transliteration of yah).
Sometimes, these divine name elements are removed to shorten the name. Such is the hypocoristic form of a name.
Book of Mormon Mulek represents a hypocoristic form of a longer name. This will be important in a moment.
Jer 38:6 in the KJV reads:
Then took they Jeremiah, and cast him into the dungeon of Malchiah the son of Hammelech, that was in the court of the prison: and they let down Jeremiah with cords. And in the dungeon there was no water, but mire: so Jeremiah sunk in the mire.
“Hammelech” is a mistake by the KJV translators. The Hebrew is הַמֶּ֗לֶךְ (ha-melech) which means “the king.” Instead of translating, they incorrectly transliterated the Hebrew.This figure Malchiah is the “son of the king”; the king would have been Zedekiah.
מַלְכִּיָּהוּ (Malchiah in the KJV; alt. Malkiyahu) is made up of the yah[u] theophoric (יָּהוּ ) and the triconsonantal root מלך (MLK) which means “king,” similar to Mulek. This *MLK “son of the king [Zedekiah]” could very well be Book of Mormon Mulek.
A seal of this royal figure was found in 1997 written in Paleo-Hebrew, calling him "Malkiyahu, son of the king [Zedekiah].” It is a very real possibility that this seal attests to the historicity of a Book of Mormon character.
For more:
Jeffrey R. Chadwick, "Has the Seal of Mulek Been Found?" Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12/2 (2003):72-83, 117-18
As LDS apologist, Jeff Lindsay, writes:
[O]ne thing is clear: the Book of Mormon account is highly plausible, and offers details consistent with modern scholarship in ways that seem to make Joseph Smith either a miraculously lucky guesser, or a miraculously blessed prophet who translated a genuine ancient record with the power of God. (Mulek, Son of Zedekiah)
One could go on, but it is clear that the critic can only offer bald assertions as bravado to his gullible Evangelical audience; he could never meaningfully engage with Book of Mormon scholarship on the onomasticon therein.
2) "How did Joseph produce a book that radiates with the Spirit, and where did he get such profound doctrine, much of which clarifies or contradicts the Christian beliefs of his time?"
RESPONSE
The Book of Mormon is tightly reflective of 19th Century American Restorationism. It REFLECTS the Christian beliefs of his time, it doesn't clarify or contradict them.
3) "In addition, one might ask: where did Joseph get the powerful insight that because of Christ’s Atonement, He can not only cleanse us but also perfect us?"
RESPONSE
Answer: Methodism. That was easy.
4) "One might ask: why was Joseph the only one in the 1,800 years following Christ’s ministry to produce such a breadth of unique and clarifying doctrines?"
RESPONSE
Do you mean the NOT unique doctrines that he plagiarized from the Methodists and Campbellites? Apparently, he WASN'T the "only one" was he?
Bald assertions. What can be gratuitously asserted can also be gratuitously denied. Furthermore, the soteriology reflected in the Book of Mormon is more complex than simply stemming from 19th century Restorationism, Methodism, etc. For a study, see Blake T. Ostler, The Problems of Theism and the Love of God (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2006).
Furthermore, the theology of the Book of Mormon fits rather well with pre-exilic Israelite theology; for a primer, see Kevin M. Christensen, The Temple, the Monarchy, and Wisdom: Lehi's World and the Scholarship of Margaret Barker
5) "To explain the Book of Mormon’s existence, the critics must also make the claim that Joseph was a naturally gifted writer at age 23. Otherwise, how did he interweave scores of names, places, and events into a harmonious whole without inconsistencies?"
RESPONSE
First, there ARE inconsistencies. Second, Smith plagiarized heavily. It's just NOT hard to identify his sources. For a start about 1/3 of the Book of Mormon is plagiarized from the 1769 American Edition of the KJV Bible. We know the exact edition because he even brought over the translation errors.
Another bald assertion. However, unlike this critic, I will happily demonstrate intellectual integrity and discuss a few of the more popular ones:
"Virgin" or "Young Lady"?
Richard Packham, a former member of the LDS Church, and a long-standing critic thereof, wrote in his article, "A Linguist Looks at Mormonism: Notes on linguistics problems in Mormonism,” wrote the following under the heading of “More King James Mistranslations in the Book of Mormon":
The Book of Mormon preserves some demonstrable mistranslations of the King James Version of the Bible. One notable example is Isaiah 7:14, which in the KJV is translated "a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." This is copied word for word into the Book of Mormon at 2 Nephi 17:14. The problem is that the Hebrew text has the word 'almah,' which does not mean "virgin," but "young woman": the Hebrew word for "virgin" is 'bethulah,' and most modern Bible translations do not use "virgin" to translate Isaiah 7:14. (Some Christians, including the author of Matthew 1:22-23, view this passage as a prophecy of the birth of Jesus from the virgin Mary, but that ignores the entire context of that chapter: the purpose of the prophecy was to answer King Ahaz' question about the outcome of his upcoming war with Syria and Israel.)
The error can be traced back to the fact that the King James translators relied heavily on the Latin (Vulgate) translation of the Bible by Jerome, from the 4th century A.D. Jerome, in turn, relied on the Greek (Septuagint) translation of the Old Testament. In Greek there is only one word for both meanings ("virgin" and "young woman"), making the Greek translation from Hebrew ambiguous. But why would Nephi be confused? He was (supposedly) in possession of the original Hebrew text, which would have had the word 'almah,' not 'bethulah.' But he mistranslates the passage just as Jerome and the King James translators mistranslated it many centuries later.
It is true that the Book of Mormon speaks of Mary being a “virgin,” both in its quotation of Isa 7:14 in 2 Nephi 17:14, as well as various other texts speaking of the then-future mother of the Messiah (1 Nephi 11:13, 15, 18, 20; Alma 7:10). However, there are problems with the argument from Packham.
Firstly, עַלְמָה (young lady) can and is used interchangeably with בְּתוּלָה (virgin). Notice the description of Rebekah in Gen 24:16, 43 (from the 1985 JPS Tanakh translation):
The maiden was very beautiful, a virgin (בְּתוּלָה) whom no man had known. She went down to the spring, filled her jar, and came up . . . As I stand by the spring of water, let the young woman (עַלְמָה) who comes out to draw and to whom I say, "Please, let me drink a little water from your jar."
Indeed, in most instances, a “young lady” would be expected to be a “virgin,” to it is essentially an issue of semantics.
Furthermore, we see this interchangeability of the terms in other Northwest Semitic languages (same language family as Hebrew).
In an Ugaritic poem recounting the marriage between Nikkal and the lunar goddess, we find the following:
tld btl[t]
[lk]trt lbnt hll [snnt]
hl lmt tld b[n]
The first and third lines can be translated thusly:
The virgin (bethulah) bears
. . .
Behold, the young woman ('almah) shall bear a son.
This text is strikingly similar to Isa 7:14.
It should also be noted that The Testament of Joseph, found in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, a pseudepigraphic text dated from the 2nd to 3rd century B.C. (though some scholars argue it evidences some later Christian interpolations, so caveat lector), speaking of the then-future Messiah, speaks of his mother as being a "virgin."[1]
At the very least, the contention of Packham that the Book of Mormon follows a KJV “error” in 2 Nephi 17:14 is not as clear-cut as they like to make it out to be; indeed, there is good evidence that Isa 7:14 should be understood as a Messianic text about a virgin, not just a young lady, giving birth to the Saviour.[2]
Notes for the above:
[1] See "The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; New York, Doubleday: 1983-1985), ed. J.H. Charlesworth, 1:775-828.
[2] While I disagree with some elements of his comments about the Hebrew, see Michael Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2010).
Isa 4:5/2 Nephi 14:5
And the Lord will create upon every dwelling place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the sharing of flaming fire by night for upon all the glory shall be a defense. (KJV)
Then the Lord will create over the whole site of Mount Zion and over its places of assembly a cloud by day and smoke and the shining of a flaming fire by night. Indeed over all the glory there will be a canopy. (NRSV)
The offending word here is חֻפָּה. The term means a "chamber" (as a covering or enclosing), per BDB, or a "shelter" (per Holladay's Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament). As the word "defense" in KJV English refers to any kind of shelter, including a canopy and other terms that this Hebrew word can be translated as , so there really is no issue.
Isa 5:25 (2 Nephi 15:25)
Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still. (KJV)
This is why the Lord's anger was roused against his people, why he stretched out his arm against it. And struck it, so that the mountains quaked, and its corpses lay like refuse in the streets. Yet his anger has not turned back, and his arm is outstretched still. (1985 JPS Tanakh)
The Hebrew term in question here is כַּסּוּחָה. Again, this is not a KJV error that made its way into the Book of Mormon--if the Hebrew is read as a verb, as in the KJV, it means "cut off" or "torn off"; only by reading it as a noun prefixed preposition it would mean "as offal."
The Doxology in the Sermon on the Mount/Sermon at the Temple
In Matt 5-7, we find the sermon that is often called "the Sermon on the Mount. " This sermon is reproduced, with some changes, by the then-resurrected, glorified Christ when, after his resurrection, preached to his people in the New World (somewhere in ancient Mesoamerica) at a temple in a land called "Bountiful"; thus it is often labelled “The Sermon at the Temple” (3 Nephi 12-14).
In Matt 6:13, Christ provides a doxology (emphasis added):
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil; For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen.
This is paralleled in 3 Nephi 13:13:
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.
Some critics, perhaps most notably Stan Larson, have charged that this is strong evidence of a 19th century origin for the Book of Mormon. The reason? Some early manuscripts of Matthew lack this doxology. Many modern translations (e.g. the NRSV) lack the doxology. The argument goes that Joseph Smith pilfered, rather ignorantly in this case, from the KJV, and the Book of Mormon retains this error.
There have been many responses to this alleged “error.” In his book, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and Sermon on the Mount (online here), John W. Welch provides a number of arguments that Jesus did utter a doxology. Consider the following:
First, it would have been highly irregular at the time of Jesus to end a Jewish prayer without some words in praise of God. In Palestinian practice, it was completely unthinkable that a prayer would end with the word “temptation.” In Judaism, prayers are often concluded with a “seal,” a sentence of praise freely formulated by the man who was praying (on this, see Jeremias’ book, The Prayers of Jesus).
Secondly, at a temple setting, that of the Sermon in 3 Nephi 12-14, it is all the more unlikely that a prayer at the temple would end without some form of doxology. This may be a factor in explaining why Luke 11 does not contain a doxology, while the Lord’s Prayer at Bountiful does. In prayers at a temple, the people did not end a prayer with just “Amen.” The benediction at the temple on the Day of Atonement ended with the phrase, “Praised be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and eternally!”
Thirdly, the doxology in the KJV and the Sermon at the Temple seems to have followed a traditional form, reflected in 1 Chronicles 29:10-13, as is widely observed. The Nephites may have known such phraseology from their Israelite traditions, for it appears in an important blessing spoken by King David, and the Nephite record contained certain historical records of the Jews (see 1 Nephi 5:12). According to Chronicles, David’s blessing reads: “Wherefore David blessed the Lord before all the congregation: and David said, Blessed be thou Lord God of Israel out father forever and ever. Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom” (1 Chron 29:10-11, emphasis added).
Fourthly, although a minority, several early texts in Greek, Syriac, and Coptic include doxologies at the end of the Lord ’s Prayer in Matthew 6:13.
What is also interesting is the Didache, an early Christian document that has been variously dated (most scholars argue that it was written about 100 C.E.; one leading Didache scholar, Aaron Milavec, in his The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. places it before the inscripturation of the Gospel of Matthew) contains the doxology in his rendition of the Lord’s Prayer (Didache 8:2), showing that the doxology in the Sermon at the Mount was known in Christian antiquity; it was not a much later development. Commenting on the Didache, one scholar wrote:
Other Purported KJV Errors in the Sermon at the Temple
The three-member doxology, which is usual in our services, is missing in the best manuscripts. But 2 Tim 4:18 and the doxology in Did. 8:2 which, according to the custom of the Didache (10:5) has two members, show that the Lord’s Prayer was prayed in the Greek church from the beginning with a doxology.
Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1-7, 385 as cited by Patrick D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994), 438 n. 118.
Other Purported KJV Errors in the Sermon at the Temple
Al Case (AKA RPCman), a former Latter-day Saint, under the section, "Influenced by the KJV of the Bible," raises the following objections to the Book of Mormon:
Why don't the Book of Mormon quotes from out of the Old Testament agree to earlier Latin, Syriac, Coptic, or Patristic texts?
Example: Matthew 5:27 and 3 Nephi 12:27 "by them of old time" not included in earliest Greek (should have said "to them of old")
Matthew 6:4, 6, 18 and 3 Nephi :4, 6, 18 "openly" added later
Matt 6:13 and 3 Nephi 13:13 "lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil" should have said, "and do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one".
Matthew 5:27//3 Nephi 12:27:
While the earliest Greek texts do lack the phrase τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, the meaning of the phrase is implicit in the Greek whether or not the phrase is original. This is because the parallel sayings in Matt 5:21 and 5:33 contain the phrase τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, so these words are understood in v.27 (via subtext), just as they are understood in vv. 38 and 43 where no Greek manuscript evidenced a need to repeat the obvious either. (John W. Welch, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple & Sermon on the Mount [Provo, UT.: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1999], 202).
Matt 6:4, 6, 18//3 Nephi 13:4, 6, 18
While the extent textual evidence does support the term "openly" (ἐν τῷ φανερῷ) was added later, the only possible meaning of these verses is that God will openly reward the righteous with treasures in heaven at the final judgment. This understanding is sustained by the Greek verb for "reward" (αποδιδωμι). It has a wide variety of meanings, including "to give retribution, reward, or punishment." Its prefix απο can mean among other things, "out from." For example, in the word "apocalypse," the prefix απο means "out from" that which is hidden. In the verb αποδιδωμι, it may convey the idea of being rewarded απο, that is, "out from," the obscurity of the acts of themselves, or openly. Thus, one does not need the phrase ἐν τῷ φανερῷ in order to understand that "he who sees in secret will reward you απο, openly" (ibid., 205).
6) "Are we now to believe that Joseph Smith, on his own, dictated the entire Book of Mormon in a single draft with mainly minor grammatical changes made thereafter?"
RESPONSE
One word: Baloney. There are significant differences between the Book of Mormon Original (aka "O") Manuscript and the Printer's (aka "P") Manuscript. It goes beyond "minor grammatical changes". Further, Smith made FURTHER changes in the Second, 1837 edition, of the Book of Mormon. This argument is demonstrably ridiculous.
One word: deception. Callister explicitly said that the changes were mainly minor grammatical changes, not that all of them would fall under this category. Callister also never denied that Joseph and others made changes to post-1830 editions of the Book of Mormon—this critic, as always, is arguing from silence to make a positive case. Callister never said anything about revelation post-1830, so in this critic’s world, he is a secret apostate who rejects the Doctrine and Covenants.
LDS scholars and apologists have long-discussed the changes in the Book of Mormon, most notably the massive 6-volume work, Analysis of Textual Variants in the Book of Mormon by Royal Skousen (which I can happily report is available online!) or the Church making available various manuscripts, including the Printer’s Manuscript of the Book of Mormon online. Be sure to always check the actual facts with the critic’s unsubstantiated nonsense.
7) "One might wonder how someone could believe that all these alleged factors and forces, as proposed by the critics, fortuitously combined in such a way that enabled Joseph to write the Book of Mormon and thus foster a satanic hoax. But how does this make sense? In direct opposition to such an assertion, this book has inspired millions to reject Satan and to live more Christlike lives."
RESPONSE
I can think of nothing more Satanic than leading people away from the Biblical Jesus, Biblical gospel, and Biblical God to another Jesus, another gospel, and another god, can you?
THAT is where the Book of Mormon takes you.
Again he is wrong; Latter-day Saints have the true, biblical Jesus. What is even sadder is that the critic, as a Calvinist, worships an impotent despot who is the author of sin and is nothing short of a divine rapist. That is the god Reformed Protestantism leads one to embrace, resulting in the consolation prize of a false gospel in this life, and the wrath of God in the next.
8) "In addition, I would have to disregard the testimony of every one of the 11 witnesses, even though each remained true to his testimony to the very end."
RESPONSE
But they DIDN'T remain true to the end, did they? They vacillated and distanced themselve from both Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Further, they were all either family members or business associates who had a vested interested in seeing the Book of Mormon succeed. Finally, to admit that the Book of Mormon was a con or a fraud, given all that happened after it was published would have ruined their reputations and might have even resulted in violence on their person. It would serve no good purpose to "fess up"
Actually, they all did. David Whitmer, for instance, while a staunch opponent of the “Brighamites” and one who believed that Joseph Smith became a fallen prophet, largely due to the influence Sidney Rigdon had on him, among other factors (polygamy, for e.g.,) affirmed his testimony of the divine authenticity of the volume, even when he would attack later developments in the Church (see his 1887 monograph, An Address to All Believers in Christ), and would even have his testimony engraved on his tombstone.
The critic’s nonsense case is made up of “maybes” and ifs.” The facts contradict his make-believe fantasy. See, for instance:
Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981).
Other excellent articles proving the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses would include:
Richard Lloyd Anderson, Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the Eight Witnesses
This is not the first time this particular critic has embarrassed himself on the Book of Mormon witnesses. Previously, via quote-mining, he argued that Brigham Young once held that the three witnesses to the plates and the angel Moroni denied their testimony. For a refutation, see:
While much more could be said, I wanted this response to be brief (and it is already lengthy). However, it should be noted that this critic's interaction with Callister on the Book of Mormon only further demonstrates how truly ignorant he is, not just on “Mormonism,” but even the very basics of logic and reasoning.