Recently, Matt Fradd posted an article:
4
Times Mormonism Changed Its Doctrine
Notice something:
not a single reference. None. Obviously, Fradd got this from a google search (or Jimmy “GishGallop” Akin who has never come across an argument against Mormonism he
would not use for Roman "boundary maintenance"). Fortunately, the B.
H. Roberts Foundation has pages on these issues, so if anyone wants articles
and primary resources on these issues, see, for e.g.:
On Polygamy:
Polygamy
(Joseph Smith Era) QNA (Primary
Sources)
Joseph
Smith and Fanny Alger QNA (Primary
Sources)
Polygamy in Eternity
QNA (Primary
Sources)
Racial diversity:
Black
Saints and the Priesthood (Joseph Smith era) QNA (Primary
Sources)
Black
Saints and the Priesthood (Brigham Young/Early Utah era) QNA (Primary
Sources)
Black Saints and the Priesthood (1895–1978) (Primary Sources)
Blood Atonement:
Blood
Atonement and Capital Punishment QNA (Primary
Sources)
Adam-God:
Adam-God Theory QNA
(Primary
Sources)
It is a pity that
Fradd et al., wanted to go down the gish gallop route instead of an intellectually
honest debate, and then produce an article with not a single reference. Imagine
if a Latter-day Saint wrote an article again, say, Catholic Mariology, and not
include a single reference/source: Fradd et al., would argue that this means
they have no case and just googling random arguments against Rome, and they would be correct. The reality is that they have not done any meaningful research, and neither has most modern Catholic apologists, on these issues, beyond grabbing arguments from the Internet, the Tanners, and the like (for e.g., I cannot see Akin interact meaningfully with the work of John Tvedtnes, Robert F. Smith, Stephen Smoot, and myself on Book of Abraham onomasticon [note: I did challenge Jimmy to debate the Book of Abraham specifically in 2020--he even has written about it and has at least one podcast on the topic]).
