My Telltale Signs

Here are three evidences that the CoJCoLDS is not what it claims to be that I rarely hear mentioned directly by apologists. I cannot find any way to get around these three issues for myself. If someone has an explanation, I’d love to hear it.

Issue 1: Facsimile 3 from the Book of Abraham

See here.

There is a lot written about the Book of Abraham. I think facsimile 3 is the most clear. Figure 2 is identified by Joseph Smith as "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head." The writing actually says, according to the translation given in Wikipedia, "Isis the Great, the god's mother." There's just no way to square that, that I can see. Other writings on the facsimile that Joseph Smith claimed to explain also fail to match his descriptions. I have never seen a faithful explanation for this.

Issue 2: Joseph Smith prophecy on the proximity of the Second Coming

See here.

Willard Richards recorded that Joseph Smith said, "there are those of the rising generation who shall not taste death till Christ come." This was in 1843. Bruce McConkie wrote about this prophecy in Mormon Doctrine. He asserted it was true. He explained it by arguing that there may have been a young couple with a new child there. The husband may have then taken a younger wife later in life and had a child in the 20th century. This child would then be part of the "rising generation" from 1843 in a technical sense.

Let's do some math. Suppose there was a 14-year-old young man with a child in Nauvoo in 1843. Suppose he took a young wife and had a child at 90. (I know. This is gross. I'm just looking at the most extreme ages I think are reasonable.) This would mean the younger child was born in about 1919. That child would be 105 today. All of these are possible. However, the possibility that all three would be connected in this way seems vanishingly small and gets smaller every year. About half the people older than 105 will die in the next year. However, if any of you have a living, older acquaintance with a half-sibling born in or before 1843, please comment. That person may be the key to prophecy.

The most likely answer I anticipate is that the prophecy never says that this is the Second Coming. Maybe it’s just some random visitation that Christ made a hundred years back? The problem I see is that this was a public prophecy. It ought to have a public fulfillment as Elder McConkie, sustained as a prophet, clearly taught.

Issue 3: Bishops who abuse children

See Floodlit.

This is clearly the most important of these three. Whenever I have been at the organization of a new bishopric, much has been mentioned about how the First Presidency approves all new bishops. It is stated directly or, at least, implied that their discernment has validated the new bishop's authority. When problems with bishops are mentioned in general conference, they are either humorous stories about bishops saying something wrong but harmless or bishops who give verbal offense and should be forgiven because they are working hard. Fine, I can get over either of these.

However, there is no way I can see that makes sense of God approving the call of an abuser as a bishop. Even one is way too many for a caring God to approve, and there are more than one. It seems to me that the church makes a big deal about prophetic approval when a bishop is called. When a bishop is shown to abuse children, suddenly no one knows how this guy got his calling. It's offensive.

Before someone says something about “agency,” let me point out that at least a few of these were guilty of abuse before they were called as bishops. I cannot believe that God would be unaware or uncaring about even one abuser being put in such a position.

There are more problems with the truth claims of the church. These are some that I don’t see addressed very much.