Recently, Tony Brown, a Reformed Protestant from the UK, posted an article interacting with some talks from the October 2017 General Conference:
His criticisms show that he has a very superficial grasp of theology, exegesis, as well as LDS scholarship and apologetics (none of his criticisms evidences even a passing, superficial familiarity with the latter). Because his treatments of the issues are superficial, I will just mainly link to fuller discussions where I interact with, and refute (frankly, better) presentations of the arguments he forwards.
Sola Scriptura: Assumed, but Never Proven
Presenting the Book of Mormon to the king, the President received this response:
“You could have given me diamonds or rubies, but nothing is more precious to me than this additional knowledge about the Lord Jesus Christ.”
Now if President Nelson had given this Tribal king a Bible and we removed the word ‘additional’, I would have been giving thanks to God, but sadly it was a Book of Mormon and the addition of the word ‘additional’ is troubling.
Is there ‘additional’ knowledge about the Lord Jesus Christ outside of the Bible? And if so, can this ‘additional’ knowledge be verified as authentic? And can this ‘additional’ knowledge be called θεόπνευστος (theopneustos), that is God breathed and inspired?
This comment, as well as some others like it where he appeals to proof-texts used (exegetically speaking, abused) by Protestants to support Sola Scriptura (e.g., "The way of testing what is being said is to test it against what the Bible teaches. It was for this that the Bereans were commended. (Acts 17:11)") are a prime example of how so many Protestant apologists, Brown included, cannot provide a sound biblical case for Sola Scriptura.
For those interested, I have a full-length book exegeting all the relevant texts Protestants appeal to, including 2 Tim 3:16-17 and Acts 17:11:
It is also available online for free here.
As I wrote on the topic of θεόπνευστος in 2 Tim 3:16-17:
Some argue that, as the term translated “God-breathed” (Greek: θεοπνευστος) is predicated upon “Scripture,” therefore, only inscripturated revelation (read: The Bible) is the only inspired authority from God. There are many problems with this. Firstly, it is question-begging. Furthermore, if an authority can only be inspired from God when such a term is predicated upon it, what about the time before the inscripturation of 2 Tim 3:16? Was there a question about Scripture being God-breathed revelation? If the argument “proves” something, it proves too much.
Furthermore, many authorities are said to be inspired by God (e.g. oral revelation in 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess 2:15), and such authorities are said to be Paul to be en par with the written word with respect to their authority.
Answering the objection that "Word-of-mouth tradition is never said to be theopneustos, God breathed, or infallible," one critic of sola scriptura responded, in part, that:
Scripture uses various terms to describe divinely originated revelation, e.g., “the word of God,” (1 Thess. 2:13) “the Spirit of your Father speaking through you” (Matt. 10:20); “in spirit” (Matt 22:43); “filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 4:8), and many others. None of these descriptions is of less divine origin and authority than theopneustos. (Robert A. Sungenis, "Point/Counterpoint: Protestant Objections and Catholic Answers," in Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [2d ed; Catholic Apologetics International, 2009], pp. 193-294, here, p. 227)
In a footnote (p. 227 n. 52) to the above, we find the following admission from Protestants, similar to that of James White and others, that the authors of the New Testament accepted, en par with inscripturated revelation (not mere subordinate authorities) other sources of revelation and authority:
Note the following statements by prominent Protestant apologists: Greg Bahnsen: “Therefore, according to the Scripture’s own witness, the verbal form and content of the apostolic publication of the gospel message should be deemed wholly true and without error.” Inerrancy of the Autographs. Carl F.H. Henry: “Inerrancy pertains only to the oral or written proclamation of the original inspired prophets and apostles” (quoted in Inerrancy of the Autographs). J.I. Parker: “The concept of biblical inspiration is essentially identical with that of prophetic inspiration…It makes no difference whether its product is oral or written. When in the past evangelical theologians defined God’s words of inspiration as the producing of God-breathed scriptures, they were not denying that God inspired words uttered orally as well. Indeed, in the case of prophets and apostles, the biblical way to put the point is to urge that the words in which these men wrote or dictated are no less God-given than the words they shared orally with the individuals and congregations, for the spoken word came first…and the Spirit speaking in them directed both what was said and how it was said (Matthew 10:19-20)” (The Adequacy of Human Language). Norman Geisler: “Whereas it is true that the oral pronouncements of the living apostles were as authoritative as their written ones (1 Thess. 2:13)…” Also, in the section, “Direct Claims For The Inspiration Of The New Testament,” Geisler states: “Earlier he had reminded them, ‘It was the word of God which you heard from us’ (1 Thess. 2:13)” (From God To Us, Geisler and Nix, pp. 43, 45). Bruce Milne: “This high view of their teaching and preaching applied as fully to their written as to their spoken statements” (Knowing the Truth, p. 32).
Furthermore, Sungenis notes the following which refutes the possible counter that the binding teaching of the apostles would eventually be inscripturated into the Bible:
[W]e must challenge the statement that there is no "suggestion that in training these men Timothy would be passing on to them infallible tradition with authority equal to the Word of God." Since in 1 Thess. 2:13 Paul considers his oral teaching an authority equal to Scripture, and then in 2 Thess. 2:15 commands the Thessalonians to preserve this oral teaching, it is certainly reasonable to conclude that the oral teachings given to Timothy, and later entrusted to other reliable men, possessed an authority equal to that of Scripture. To deny such a conclusion there must be substantial proof that [such an] interpretation has no possibility of being correct. Moreover, nothing suggests that the oral teaching to the Thessalonians possessed more authority than the oral teaching to Timothy and his men . . . probably the most devastating [argument against the Protestant approach to] 2 Thess. 2:15 and similar verses is that neither Paul nor any other writers, gives any statement which commands that the Church retire oral revelation, either during the writing of Scripture or once Scripture was completed. Since the Protestant is required to form his doctrine only from mandates found in Scripture, the burden of proof rests on his shoulders to show that Scripture teaches that the propagation of apostolic oral revelation must cease with the completion of Scripture . . . in reality, the debate should stop here until the Protestant can furnish the Scriptural proof for his position. If he believes in sola scriptura, then he is required to give answers from sola scriptura, not answers based on what he thinks is correct and logical. (Ibid., pp. 225-26, 236-37).
The Latter-day Saint View off the Bible
Brown takes exception with the emphasis on the Book of Mormon as well as the eighth article of faith stating that the Bible is to be accepted “as far as it is translated correctly”:
The whole tenor of his message was undoubtedly to show that the Book of Mormon is not just a companion to the Bible, but rather that it is superior to the Bible. After all, speaking of the Bible, the Eighth Article of the Mormon faith says:
We believe the Bible to be the word of God. as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon. to be the word of God.
So, it is no surprise that President Nelson reminds the Conference what President Thomas S. Monson said back in April. Monson asked:
“each of us to prayerfully study and ponder the
Book of Mormon each day.”
Notice that it is not the Bible, but the Book of Mormon that should be studied and pondered each day. One can understand why this is the message. To study the Book of Mormon keeps you within Mormonism, but to prayerfully study and ponder the Bible each day may lead you out.
For those wanting a full treatment of the LDS view of the Bible, and to see how Brown's comments and those of Mike Thomas and others (to whom I respond in the article) are a joke, see:
Brown's "shot" at the end of the above quote notwithstanding, a careful, exegetical reading of the Bible will not result in a Latter-day Saint jettisoning their faith; instead, it will result in one rejecting Protestantism. See the following article where I interact with, and refute, the Reformed theological presuppositions of Bobby Gilpin which are representative of those of other Reformed Protestant critics of LDS theology:
Answering the Charge of Contradictions between the Book of Mormon and LDS Theology
In a Gish Gallop-like way, Brown lists longstanding alleged contradictions between the Book of Mormon and LDS theology which have long been soundly answered by LDS scholars and apologists:
The Book of Mormon nowhere teaches that the Father is a person with flesh and bones, but rather it says He is spirit (Alma 18:26-29; Alma 22:8-11)
The Book of Mormon nowhere teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are separate gods, "one in purpose" only, but not one in being.
But rather it teaches that there is One God in three persons (Mosiah 15:1-4; Mosiah 16:15; Alma 11:38-40; 3 Nephi 11:27)
The Book of Mormon doesn’t teach that God was once a man on another planet who progressed to become a God. It teaches that God has always been God. (2 Nephi 27:23; 2 Nephi 29:9; Mormon 9:19; Moroni 8:18)
The Book of Mormon also doesn’t teach that God is married and has numerous wives; or that God and his wives procreate spirit children, who live with Him before coming to the earth and receiving a human body to go through mortal probation; neither does it teach that Jesus Christ is the brother of every human being, and is also the brother of Lucifer.
This is a joke. With respect to Alma 18:26-29 and 22:8-11, the people mistook Ammon for the “Great Spirit,” notwithstanding the face he was plainly corporeal (see Alma 18:2-5, 11). One does wonder if Brown has read the Book of Mormon? If not, he can plead gross ignorance; if he has, well, he should read Rev 21:8.
Those familiar with LDS theology know that there is one Heavenly Mother, not plural, so Brown is arguing against a straw-man of LDS theology. And as for Satan being the “spiritual brother” of Jesus, well, that is actually biblical. See The "Mormon Jesus" being a "Spirit Brother" of Satan--what the Bible really says
For those wanting a sound response to the rest of these "contradictions," see my response to Lee Barker on this issue, under "Question Three: The Book of Mormon and the Fulness of the Gospel" at Answering Lee Baker's "Challenging Questions"
Finally, one should note another fundamental problem of Brown’s assumptions underlying this—he assumes that, for the Latter-day Saint, the Book of Mormon is to be formally sufficient, something we do not believe to be the case. This is a prime example of a Protestant imposing his false theological presuppositions (here, formal sufficiency of the Bible) and imposing it to the Book of Mormon. After all, if the Book of Mormon was formally sufficient, why the need for the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price?
Perhaps one will ask if such is the case, what about the claim that the Book of Mormon contains the "fulness of the gospel"? Doesn't such necessitate formal sufficiency? This is based on explicit statements in the revelations of Joseph Smith, such as:
Which [the Book of Mormon] contains a record of a fallen people, and the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also. (D&C 20:9)
Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fullness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim. (D&C 27:5)
He [Moroni] said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, gibing an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang. He also said that the fullness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Saviour to the ancient inhabitants. (Joseph Smith History 1:34)
Opponents charge that this is false, as the Book of Mormon does not make explicit mention of certain Latter-day Saint beliefs and practices, such as pre-mortal existence; deification (eternal progression); the Aaronic Priesthood, and other doctrines and practices of the Church. Firstly, it should be noted that some of the beliefs critics claim to be absent in the Book of Mormon are present in the Book of Mormon, albeit implicitly. Theosis, for instance, is alluded to in 3 Nephi 28:10 and other passages.
On the issue of the doctrinal content of the Book of Mormon, I would recommend Mike Parker’s analysis of this issue, which is a response to a criticism by the late Walter R. Martin, author of The Maze of Mormonism.
On the issue of the doctrinal content of the Book of Mormon, I would recommend Mike Parker’s analysis of this issue, which is a response to a criticism by the late Walter R. Martin, author of The Maze of Mormonism.
The Book of Mormon itself is explicit that it contains only the lesser things (i.e., basic teachings) in 3 Nephi 26:1-12:
And now it came to pass that when Jesus had told these things he expounded them unto the multitude; and he did expound all things unto them, both great and small. And he saith: These scriptures, which ye had not with you, the Father commanded that I should give unto you; for it was wisdom in him that they should be given unto future generations. And he did expound all things, even from the beginning until the time that he should come in his glory-- yea, even all things which should come upon the face of the earth, even until the elements should melt with fervent heat, and the earth should be wrapt together as a scroll, and the heavens and the earth should pass away; and even unto the great and last day, when all people, and all kindreds, and all nations and tongues shall stand before God, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil--If they be good, to the resurrection of everlasting life; and if they be evil, to the resurrection of damnation; being on a parallel, the one on the one hand and the other on the other hand, according to the mercy, and the justice, and the holiness which is in Christ, who was before the world began. And now there cannot be written in this book even a hundredth part of the things which Jesus did truly teach unto the people; But behold the plates of Nephi do contain the more part of the things which he taught the people. And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken. And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them. And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation. Behold, I was about to write them, all which were engraven upon the plates of Nephi, but the Lord forbade it, saying: I will try the faith of my people. Therefore I, Mormon, do write the things which have been commanded me of the Lord. And now I, Mormon, make an end of my sayings, and proceed to write the things which have been commanded me.
Many Latter-day Saints have also (correctly) pointed out that the term “gospel” simply means “good news,” and that the Book of Mormon defines the “gospel” in 3 Nephi 27:13-21 which records the very words of the resurrected Jesus Christ when He appeared in Mesoamerica after His resurrection:
Behold, I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me. And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works. And it shall come to pass, that whoso repent and is baptised in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world. And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast unto the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father. And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words. And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into this rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end. Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptised in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day. Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do.
In the above pericope, the “gospel” is defined as being the good news about the life, divine mission, atoning sacrifice, triumphant resurrection, and further glorious final coming of Jesus Christ. As the Book of Mormon contains the most lucid explanations of the atonement of Jesus Christ (e.g. 2 Nephi 2; 9; Mosiah 15; Alma 34; 42), it qualifies as containing the fullness of the gospel.
In a number of revelations, the Lord commands the preaching of “the fullness of the gospel.” For instance, note these two texts from the Doctrine and Covenants, dating from 1836:
And cause that the remnant of Jacob, who have been cursed and smitten because of their transgression be converted from their wild and savage condition to the fullness of the everlasting gospel. (D&C 109:65)
And next spring let them depart to go over the great waters, and there promulgate my gospel, the fullness thereof, and bear record of my name. (D&C 118:4)
I find these two verses to be significant as they were revealed to Joseph Smith during a period of inscripturation, even according to opponents of the LDS Church. Obviously, during this time, various practices and doctrines were developing and were being revealed, and yet, Joseph Smith could command the preaching of the “fullness of the gospel” in 1836. One could argue that this is further evidence that the term does not mean “totality of doctrine and practices,” but a simpler concept, as outlined above.
Some opponents charge that D&C 42:12 teaches the Bible contains the fullness of the gospel and therefore the Book of Mormon is superfluous, even according to LDS teachings. The verse reads as follows:
And again, the elders, priests, teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fullness of the gospel.
This is a rather superficial reading of the verse. The Bible is coupled with the Book of Mormon (note the use of the coordinating conjunction “and”), so the “fullness of the gospel” is either being said of the Book of Mormon alone of the Book of Mormon coupled with the Bible.
Even the New Testament defines the "gospel" in the more narrow sense:
Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed you--unless you have come to believe in vain. For I handed on to you as of first importance what I turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures. (1 Cor 15:1-4, NRSV)
Another example would be how, in the gospels, Jesus and his followers are said to preach the gospel of the kingdom (e.g., Matt 4:23; 9:35), but it is only after this gospel preaching is inaugurated that Jesus reveals that He would have to die (Matt 16:21)!
Brown is right about something: Ezek 37 and the two sticks
His many failures notwithstanding, Brown is right about something. Commenting on the common LDS appeal to Ezek 37 as a "proof-text" to support the Book of Mormon, he wrote:
Yes, the LDS may point you to some Bible verses to show you that the Book of Mormon was a prophesied companion to the Bible, but then they are good at taking verses out of context. The LDS may ask you to turn to Ezekiel 37:15-17 which says:
"The word of the LORD came again to me saying, “And you, son of man, take for yourself one stick and write on it, ‘For Judah and for the sons of Israel, his companions’; then take another stick and write on it, ‘For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and all the house of Israel, his companions.’ “Then join them for yourself one to another into one stick, that they may become one in your hand."
They will tell you that the two sticks that become one stick, mentioned in these verses, are speaking of the Bible and the Book of Mormon. This is eisgesis, that is a reading into the text something that is clearly not there. Contextually and historically, these verses are speaking of a scattered people coming back together. The Northern and the Southern kingdoms will become one, uniting under King David. Nothing whatsoever to do with the Book of Mormon.
I agree with Brown that there are problems with the popular LDS interpretation of Ezek 37, not the least is that the text is not about the coming together of two scriptural records, the Bible and the Book of Mormon, but the restoration of the two kingdoms, which comes out when one continues reading the chapter. However, there is another issue that is rarely discussed in LDS circles, and that is how the Doctrine and Covenants precludes the identity of the “stick of Joseph” with the Book of Mormon. In D&C 27:5, we read the following (emphasis added):
Behold, this is wisdom in me; wherefore, marvel not, for the hour cometh that I will drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth, and with Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fullness of my everlasting gospel, and to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim.
In this text, the Book of Mormon is identified, not as the “Stick of Joseph/Ephraim,” but as the record thereof. There is a clear differentiation between the record (the Book of Mormon) and the stick; instead, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon can be understood as being a requisite part of the restoration of Israel, but not that it is a direct fulfilment of Ezek 37:15-20. It appears that the Doctrine and Covenants itself, as well as a careful exegesis of Ezek 37, precludes the popular identification of the Book of Mormon with the “Stick of Joseph.”
This is not to say the Book of Mormon is the not Word of God (it is!), but that this common “proof-text” should not be used to support the Book of Mormon from the Old Testament.
Notwithstanding, many anti-Mormon authors, when attempting to counter LDS use of this text in favour of the Book of Mormon, make a number of arguments that show very shallow understanding of Hebrew and scholarship. One such example comes from Ron Rhodes and Marian Bodine, in their book, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons (Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House Publishers, 1995), 102, where they write:
[In] ancient times, when parchments were wrapped around sticks, they were called scrolls, not sticks. The Hebrew word for “sticks” (`es) is typically used to refer simply to wood tree, or timber, not scrolls (Numbers 15:12; see also 1 Kings 17:10; 2 Kings 6:6; Lamentations 4:8). If Ezekiel had meant to talk about two scrolls in Ezekiel 37, there was a perfectly good word he could have used (Hebrew: saipher). But he chose a different word, and for a reason: He wasn’t talking about scrolls or books.
Some scholars think עֵץ alludes to “sceptre” in line with the LXX rendering ραβδος (“stick”) which can refer to a sceptre (e.g., Allen 2:193; cf. Zimmerli 2:273). The Hebrew word however also allows for the Targum interpretation as “tablet” (ל וחא) The allusion would also be more obvious had a different word been used, such as מַטֶּה as in 7:10, 11; 19:11, 12, 14 (2x) (cf. Num. 17:17ff), or שֵׁבֶט as in 19:11, 14; 20:37 and 21:15, 18 (cf. Gen 49:10) which would make a nice play of words with “tribes of Israel” in 37:19, or מַקֵּל as in 39:9 (cf. Zech. 11:7). Furthermore, the sign act is easier to picture with two tablets rather than two sticks (cf. Maarsingh 3:88). J.W. Mazurel argues that עֵץ in 37:15ff was chosen in view of עֲצָמוֹ in 37:1-14, see “Het Woord עֵץ in Ezechiel 37:16-20,” Amserdamse Cahiers voor Exegese en Bijbelse Theologie 12 (1993): 116-21.
For a well-thought-out article arguing in favour of the traditional interpretation of Ezek 37, see Ronnie Bray’s article, “'Take Thee a Stick': A Consideration of what 'stick' means in this context'"
For a view similar to my own, see the blog post by Kevin L. Barney entitled, “OT: Ezekiel’s Sticks” that understands the LDS use of this passage within the sense of a pesher, similar, to some degree, to what New Testament authors did when they used Old Testament texts (the use of Hos 11:1 in Matt 2:15 as one example).
Further, by focusing on the "two sticks" text, LDS have really done a disservice to the entire theology of this chapter. While holding to the view that the “sticks” in Ezek 37 are predictions about the Bible and Book of Mormon, Duane Crowther offers the following commentary on this chapter which is rather insightful:
Hopefully, more Latter-day Saints will be more careful when they approach Ezek 37, as well as retire it as a "proof-text" in support of the Book of Mormon.
In spite of the chance to provide an exegetical case for Sola Scriptura as well as meaningfully interact with and critique the Book of Mormon in light of LDS scholarship and apologetics, Brown instead decided to engage in "boundary maintenance," wherein his article is clearly designed not to appeal to informed Latter-day Saints, but ignorant members of his own religious community to provide "confirmation bias" towards a low view of "Mormonism," one whose foundation is that of eisegesis, and in the case of Calvinism, a false gospel.
One will hope that the more discerning Protestant reader will actually investigate (1) their own theology and presuppositions and (2) Latter-day Saint Scripture and theology from informed individuals, not those merely engaging in "boundary maintenance."
Further, by focusing on the "two sticks" text, LDS have really done a disservice to the entire theology of this chapter. While holding to the view that the “sticks” in Ezek 37 are predictions about the Bible and Book of Mormon, Duane Crowther offers the following commentary on this chapter which is rather insightful:
Some Latter-day Saints do both themselves and their Church an injustice by overlooking several important aspects of the prophecy when discussing it with others. They would do well to recognize that the entire thirty-seventh chapter of Ezekiel is a prophecy of the restoration of Israel in the last days and that Ezekiel’s prophecy must be interpreted in the chronology which the chapter indicates. The chapter’s concluding verses provide seven clues as to the time when the two sticks will finally be one in the hand of the Lord. It will be in that period when
1. The children of Israel will be gathered from among the heathen and restored to the land of Palestine. (verse 21)
2. The two kingdoms, Judah and Israel, will have combined and will have been established as one nation in that land. (verse 22) This means that the Ten Tribes will have, in that period, in that period, already returned to Palestine.
3. They shall be ruled by a king. (Verse 22)
4. The Lord will have cleansed them from sin. (verse 23)
5. Their king shall be named David. (verses 24-25)
6. The Lord’s sanctuary (temple?) will have been built in the land of Palestine. (verses 26-27)
7. The heathen nations will have been taught that God sanctifies and protects Israel. (verse 28)
Because the careful description Ezekiel gives us of the time when the two sticks will be joined clearly indicates that the event is yet future, the present joint role of the Bible and Book of Mormon should be regarded as only the beginning of the prophecy’s fulfilment. One other aspect of the prophecy is worthy of note and should not be overlooked. Ezekiel describes the stick of Joseph as being of a dual nature: the record if to be “the stick of Ephraim” and it must also be “for all the house of Israel his companions.” Then Ezekiel adds that the stick of Joseph is to be “in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows.” Ephraim, of course, was the leading tribe among the tribes which were carried away captive by Assyria and which are now known as the Ten Lost Tribes. Is the stick of Joseph, then, to be one record, or two, or several? The Book of Mormon neither fulfils nor claims to fulfil Ezekiel’s stipulations that the stick of Joseph must speak for all the house of Israel who are companions to Ephraim, nor that it has been in the hands of the tribes of Israel. Yet it is a record of some of the descendants of Joseph, and the Lord referred to the angel who restored it as “Moroni, whom I have sent unto you to reveal the Book of Mormon, containing the fullness of my everlasting gospel, to whom I have committed the keys of the record of the stick of Ephraim.” (D&C 27:5). To complete the requirements set forth by Ezekiel’s prophecy for the record of Joseph, other records—of the Ten Tribes—are still needed. The Book of Mormon, because of both content and chronological relationship, can provide only a partial fulfilment of the prophecy. A prophecy [2 Nephi 29:10-14] found in the Book of Mormon itself serves to explain the records which must someday be combined and tells when they will be gathered in one. (Duane S. Crowther, The Prophecies of Joseph Smith: Over 400 Prophecies by and about Joseph Smith, and their Fulfillment [Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1983], pp. 170-71, n. 27; italics in original; passage in square brackets added).
Hopefully, more Latter-day Saints will be more careful when they approach Ezek 37, as well as retire it as a "proof-text" in support of the Book of Mormon.
Conclusion
At his concluding statement, Brown wrote:
If you are reading this and you are LDS, I implore you to put down the Book of Mormon and to read the Bible. Compare what it says against what you have been taught as a Mormon and as you do, ask the Holy Spirit to enable to see the ‘real’ Jesus.
Speaking as a highly biblically literate Latter-day Saint (I am a graduate of a Roman Catholic theological institution, for e.g.) I can honestly say that the one who is preaching a false conception of Jesus and a false gospel is Brown. On the topic of the “real Jesus,” I discussed this already in detail in a previous response to Brown’s friend, Bobby Gilpin:
One will hope that the more discerning Protestant reader will actually investigate (1) their own theology and presuppositions and (2) Latter-day Saint Scripture and theology from informed individuals, not those merely engaging in "boundary maintenance."
