Email exchange between Robert Boylan and Revelation TV
Email #1
From: IrishLDS87@gmail.com (Robert Boylan)
Subject: John Begbour and Doug Harris on the Book of Mormon and Birthplace of Jesus
Date: 28/04/2011
On Revelation TV tonight, I watched Doug Harris' interview with John Begbour. During the programme, both Begbour (the guest and ex-Mormon) and Harris claimed that (1) Alma 7:10 contradicts the Bible with respect to birthplace of Christ and (2) no Latter-day Saint has been able to give a satisfactory answer to this alleged "problem" with the Book of Mormon. I hope this is passed onto Begbour, in light of Harris' comment that he has done a number of interviews on various elements of "Mormonism" in the past and will be interviewed on the issue of Latter-day Saint Christology in forthcoming interviews (I have watched this one and the one on Reachout Trust's Youtube page).
On the issue of Alma 7:10 and the birthplace of Jesus Christ--
Let me begin by citing the text in question:
And behold, he shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem, which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.
The argument itself represents a fundamental mis-reading of the Book of Mormon, for the text does NOT state that Jesus would be born in the city of Jerusalem, but in the *land* of Jerusalem (and yes, contra Harris and Begbour, the use of "land" is important, though not the only issue)
In the Ancient Near East, and in the biblical texts, the chief city ruled over just the land of the city itself, but also the land surrounding it. For instance, in Joshua, we frequently read of "cities with their villages" (e.g., Joshua 15:36). In some cases, as known city is named and is said to have other cities, towns, or villages under its dominion. Thus, we read of "Heshon and all her cities" (Joshua 13:17), "Ekron with her towns and her villages" (Joshua 15:45), "Megiddo and her towns" (Joshua 17:11), and "Ashdod with her towns and her villages" (Joshua 15:47).
Lehi and Nephi seem to have known the designation of Jerusalem as both a city and the land it governed. The phrase *land of Jerusalem* is found in 1 Nephi 3:9-10; 7:2. We read that Lehi dwelt "at Jerusalem in all his days" (1 Nephi 1:4), but he evidently did not live in the city of that name. After coming to Jerusalem, where Laman visited Laban in his house (1 Nephi 3:11, 23), Lehi's sons, thinking to purchase the brass plates from Laban, "went down to the land of [their] inheritance" (1 Nephi 3:22) to gather up their wealth. They then "went up again" to Jerusalem (1 Nephi 3:23) and offered their wealt in exchange for the plates. Laban chased them away and, after a time, they returned to "the walls of Jerusalem" (1 Nephi 4:34), and Nephi "crept into the city and went forth towards the house of Laban" (1 Nephi 4:5). From this, it appears that Lehi dwelt in the "land" of Jerusalem, but not in the city itself, as did Laban.
The use of "land" in Alma 7:10 seems deliberate. In view of the biblical and non-biblical evidence, much more of which could be offered here than what has been given, such is keeping with ancient Near Eastern tradition, and instead of detracts from the Book of Mormon, adds to its verisimilitude. To the Nephites, whose society revolved around cities controlling larger lands, it would have been perfectly, logical to place Bethlehem in the land of Jerusalem. Bethlehem is only 5 km from Jerusalem, falling within its dominion. Furthermore, after five hundred years, I really doubt that most peoples would know of an insignificant suburb of Jerusalem in Old World geography, being separated from such for half a millennia, instead, only Jerusalem itself, within the frame-work of pre-critical understanding of such (the city and the area surrounding it). Add this to the fact that, in ancient cultures, literacy was rare (thus Scribal Schools being established in Egypt and the ANE, and scribes playing an important role in such societies).
Tablet 290 of the Amarna tablets, pre-dating Micah, Isaiah, and the Book of Mormon (they date to the 14th c. B.C.E.), refers to "a town belonging to Jerusalem, Bit-NIN.URTA," that is, Bethlehem (Moran, trans. The Amarna Letters [Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1992], 334). Previous translations, such as that of William Foxwell Albright read "land of Jerusalem" and "Beit Lahmi" (see http://www.jefflindsay.com/amarna-bethlehem-land-of-jerusalem.jpg for a scan of Hopkins' translation).
There is no mistake in the text, nor any contradiction between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, only ignorance of facts and eisegesis of the Book of Mormon.
I will also note that Micah 5:2 is ambiguous with respect to its fulfillment; it mentions Bethlehem-Ephratah, which many interpreters believe to be about a tribe, not a location. Indeed, Begbour and Harris seem unaware of the New Testament use of the Old Testament, such as secondary fulfillments; midrashaic use of texts and the like (e.g., Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament and Rydelnik's The Messianic Hope: is the Old Testament Really Messianic? among other volumes, such as Richard B. Hay's Echoes of Scriptures in the Letters of Paul and Fishbane's Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel discuss these issues in depth). Regardless of whether Micah 5:2 (v. 1 in Hebrew) is fulfilled in a primary sense by Jesus with his birth in Betlehem, or to be understood as an allusion or represents midrashaic-like usage by Matthew and other NT authors (viz. Bethlehem being used to show a secondary fulfillment, per 1st c. C.E. exegesis) is irrelevant; the Book of Mormon is not in the wrong, notwithstanding this popular misreading of the volume. However, I raise the issue of the interpretation of this passage as Harris' and Begbour made a bald assertion with respect to its meaning; this represents a poor hermeneutic, one susceptible to eisegesis, not exegesis.
Just a few final comments; passages like John 20:28 (where Thomas says ho kurios mou kai ho theos mou) and like-texts (Titus 2:13 that uses the Granville Sharp rule) do not pose a problem for "Mormon" Christology, notwithstanding Begbour's claim that LDS theology holds that Christ is "progressing to become a God" (paraphrasing; not exact quote). Furthermore, at the beginning of the programme, there was a focus on the father, son, and Spirit being three separate persons in LDS theology. However, Trinitarian theology also holds to three separate persons; the real issue of the issue of being ("ousia") and the issue of ontological monotheism as opposed to the LDS approach, viz., "kingship monotheism" (see Blake T. Ostler, Of God and Gods [vol. 3 Exploring Mormon Thought; Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008]).
I do hope this will be passed onto John Begbour. This is representative of the eisegesis of Scripture (biblical and uniquely LDS) that I have seen in this programme and a past show that is on Reachout Trust's youtube page, as well as from similar venues here in Ireland and the UK and elsewhere. I do hope that his forthcoming interviews on LDS Christology will not repeat the same time-worn, long-answered criticisms (e.g, Colossians 1:16 being eisegeted to “disprove” Christ being the “spirit brother” of all of us [cue yellow journalism of claiming that "Jesus is the spirit brother of Satan" without giving theological context and the like . . .]; the claim that LDS theology does not hold Jesus to be deity, etc).
Robert Boylan
Tralee, Ireland.
Email #2
To: Robert Boylan
From: Doug Harris
Subject: RE: John Begbour and Doug Harris on the Book of Mormon and Birthplace of Jesus
Date: 29/04/2011
Robert
Thank you for your email and I am glad you found the programme interesting enough to watch. However, I do not believe that you answer does explain away Alma 7:10 because this verse in the Book of Mormon does not say IN (land of Jerusalem) but AT (a particular place) Jerusalem.
For a complete answer to why ‘land of Jerusalem’ can never be an answer to Alma 7:10 please look at http://mrm.org/jerusalem.
Thank you again for writing.
Doug Harris
Director of Operations
Email #3
To: Doug Harris
From: Robert Boylan
Subject: RE: John Begbour and Doug Harris on the Book of Mormon and Birthplace of Jesus
Date: 29/04/2011
Doug,
The problem is that there is no difference really between "in" and "at" Jerusalem, at least with respect to Alma 7:10 in its entire context; only with the (false) a priori assumption that "Jerusalem" denotes only the city itself, and never its local environs, can one claim the problem will never be answered; indeed, "land of 'x'" in the Bible and the Book of Mormon is much more inclusive than "city of 'x'." Furthermore, in Hebrew, "at" and "in" represents the same pre-fixed preposition, namelyבְּ *b, so your attempt at trying to nullify my argument by positing a differentiation between "at" and in" does not stand up to scrutiny. Additionally, the term "land" is used in conjunction with "at Jerusalem" in Alma 7:10. It is nothing less than eisegesis, not exegesis, to read what you and others (beginning with Alexander Campbell in 1832) read into the text. Add to this the biblical evidence itself that uses אֶ֫רֶץ 'erets"land" to denote both the city and/or the locale area under its control, and not just theעִיר' ir city of the region, then your argument remains without any support.
It should be noted that ancient Jewish interprets of Psalm 87 (interpreted in the Aramaic Midrashim and other texts to be Messianic) places "Bethlehem" in Jerusalem; to quote one commentator:
The text, [Psalm 87] with midrashim to be found in the Targum, the LXX, Midrash on Psalms, and elsewhere has its major fascinations, but the important idea for us is that when God writes down the peoples, i.e. makes a census of the world, this man, or Man will be born there, i.e. in Jerusalem, the ritual limits of which, as Passover practice showed, included Bethlehem. John Duncan Martin Derrett, Light on the Narratives of The Narratives of the Nativity, Novum Testamentum, vol. 17, (1975), 86.
I am well aware of Johnson and McKeever's piece (I also own some of their books). I also notice that their article, alongside your non-response, does not tackle the evidence from Amarna (dating to the 14th c. B.C.E.), nor even the biblical evidence (such has been discussed for a very long time). Indeed, there have been many responses to McKeever and Johnson's piece (e.g., http://www.yorkshiretales.com/allaboutmormonism/page_alma_710.html; also see a piece a friend of mine, James Stutz, responding to similar "criticisms" of the work of Daniel Peterson et al. at http://lehislibrary.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/response-to-hulse-alma-7-10.pdf).
Do pass this onto Begbour.
Best,
Robert Boylan
Email #4
To: Robert Boylan
From: Doug Harris
Date: 21/05/2011
Robert
Thank you for taking the time to write and I have studied what you said. Sure you bring things from here and things from there and you can use all this apparent justification if you want but in the end when we are talking about the person of Jesus and not just words, it just does not hold water.
Simply put in God’s original Testament he prophesied, 700 years before the event, that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. It then shows that this prophesy was clearly fulfilled to the letter – showing just how correct and trustworthy the Bible is.
The same God would not then say that Jesus was born in or at or whatever Jerusalem because that would nullify His prophetic word making Him untrustworthy and we might as well all pack up believing in Him.
He is trustworthy and that is shown through the Bible unfortunately it is not shown in the Book of Mormon; the God shown in the Book of Mormon is not trustworthy and indeed the Book of Mormon is shown to be ‘another’ – of a different kind – testament.
I trust you will seek Him and come to know the same truth and the same Lord as John found.
Doug Harris
Director of Operations
Email #5
To: Doug Harris
From: Robert Boylan
Date: 21/05/2011
Doug,
With respect to Micah 5:2 (which I note, you have not exegeted; just thrown out bald assertions), the New Testament re-works many OT texts in light of the Christ event; this is accepted even by conservative Evangelicals, such as Enns; Dunn (who I met once and discussed this issue with when he visited Maynooth once [I studied theology; anthropology; Classical Hebrew and Koine Greek there for five years, btw]); Rydelnik and others). Indeed, read contextually, Micah 5:2 seems to be about a tribe, not the place of birth of a then-future person, and it was later re-interpreted to have Jesus and His birth as a secondary fulfillment (on the issue of various fulfillments from a conservative Evangelical, see Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic?). It is similar to the situation we have for Hosea 11:1 and its use by Matthew; in its original context, it has nothing to do with Jesus, but the Children of Israel and the Exodus; however, Matthew, using first century Jewish means of interpretation, re-interpreted Hosea 11:1 to have a secondary fulfillment with Jesus (cf. Acts 1:20 and its use/reworking of Psalm 69:25 and 109:8 to justify Judas being replaced with Matthias; those Psalms, read in context, have nothing to do with Judas and his replacement; New Testament Apostleship and the like, but David's Court, but Peter reuses them to apply to the filling of Judas' office as apostle--will you argue that Acts 1 should be rejected, with other like-texts, as it shows God's word being nullified?).
However, even allowing Micah 5:2 to be, in its original historical/cultural context, to be, in terms of primary fulfillment, about Jesus Christ, one must note that you have not dealt with, or interacted with, in any meaningful manner, any of the information I passed onto you regarding the issue of Alma 7:10; just bald assertions and linking to an article that has been refuted for some time from McKeever and Johnson's Website. There is an old saying in biblical scholarship, "What I do is exegesis; what you do is eisegesis." Such perfectly describes this exchange.
You claim that using "Jerusalem" (ignoring it being coupled with "land" again and its significance . . .) is an indication that the same God who inspired the Bible could not have been the same one who inspired the Book of Mormon. However, this reflects an assumption of the nature of Scripture and inspiration that is a later conception within Christianity, (viz. the Protestant concept of Sola and Tota Scriptura, as well as biblical inerrancy). However, such is nothing short of a myth. For instance, in Genesis 10:7, we read of Sabtecha, a Cushite (Ethiopian). However, this figure represents an anachronism in the Genesis text, as he was the king of the 25th Egyptian dynasty in the 7th century B.C.E. (one of many reasons why most OT scholars hold to some variant of the Documentary Hypothesis). Should I jettison, not just the Book of Mormon, but the Bible and the Biblical God for this anachronism in the text of Genesis 10? Or what about Genesis 36:31, a list of Edomite kings is provided which is followed by the comment that they lived “before any king reigned over the sons of Israel.” This makes sense only if written by someone who lived in or after an Israel ruled over by kings (after 1000 BCE)? The readership is understood to be situated in a post-monarchical time period, well after the time of Moses. Such examples can be multiplied.
In terms of biblical prophecy and your assertion about the exactness of the biblical record, Acts 15 and its reliance upon Amos 9 refutes your (false) a priori assumptions on the nature of revelation.
In Acts 15:13–17, James appeals to Amos 9:11–12 in an effort to support through scripture the taking of the gospel directly to the Gentiles and the cessation of circumcision. It even seems James’ quotation settles the debate. The critical portion of Amos 9 reads
In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. (Amos 9:11)
This reading comes from LXX Amos, although there is a bit of movement. For instance, “the Lord” is an addition. The LXX actually omits the object, reading, “so that the remnant of the people might seek, and all the nations . . .” There is also a clause missing from Acts’ quotation (“and set it up as the days of old”). The important observation, however, is the Greek translation’s relationship to the Hebrew. The crucial section reads in the Greek, “so that the remnant of the people might seek,” but in the Hebrew, “that they may possess the remnant of Edom.” The confusion with Edom arises likely because of the lack of the mater lectionis which we find in MT in the word אדום . Without it, the word looks an awful lot like אדם , “man,” or “humanity.” The verb “to possess” (יירשׁו ), was also misunderstood as “to seek” (ידרשׁו ). It is unlikely that MT is secondary. First, there’s no object for the transitive verb εκζητησωσιν, “that they might seek.” Second, the reading in MT makes more sense within the context. David’s fallen house would be restored so that it might reassert its authority, specifically in overtaking the remnant of Edom (see Amos 1:11–12) and “all the nations,” for which Edom functions as a synecdoche (Edom commonly acts as a symbol for all of Israel’s enemies [Ps 137:7; Isa 34:5–15; 63:1–6; Lam 4:21]). The notion that the restoration of the Davidic kingdom would cause the remnant of the people and all the nations to seek the Lord is also a bit of a disconnect within Amos. This quotation shows not only that the early church relied on the Septuagint, but that it rested significant doctrinal decisions on the Greek translation, even when it represented a misreading of the underlying Hebrew. Christians today reject the inspiration of the LXX, but the New Testament firmly accepted it, and if the New Testament is inspired in its reading of LXX Amos 9:11-12, which is itself a misreading of the original reading, then the current Hebrew Old Testament is in error. (See Gary D. Martin, Multiple Originals: New Approaches to Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism (Atlanta, Georgia: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), pp. 255-61 for more information on this issue).
Why is this significant? It shows that, applying the fundamentalist, all-or-nothing hermeneutic that you hold to, one must admit to accepting, as inerrant, a text (i.e., Acts 15), and a dogmatic decree therefrom (viz. circumcision not being a prerequisite for salvation and the entry of Gentiles into the New Covenant), notwithstanding it being a text that is dependent upon a faulty translation of Amos 9! So much for the fiction of inerrancy and your fundamentalist assumptions! Will you reject the New Testament as "another," that is, different/false testament? Will you conclude, being consistent in your approach to the Book of Mormon, that the God of the New Testament is not trustworthy and that God's word is nullified if one holds to the New Testament?
Of course, I know that you will not interact with any of the above, just like you have failed to interact with the information I have passed onto you with respect to Alma 7:10 (except perhaps more bald assertions; inane comments like one having to "pack up" belief in God due to inerrancy of any Scripture being a myth and the like); however, it shows that you must engage in a double-standard and deception to argue against the Book of Mormon with respect to the issue of Alma 7:10 and the birthplace of Jesus Christ. James R. White, who appeared on your show on KJV Onlyism, often states in his debates against Muslims, "Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument." While I strongly disagree with White and his Reformed theology, he is spot-on in such a claim; Doug, your shoddy arguments (alongside those of Jon Begbour's) against the Book of Mormon can be turned on the Bible with devastating force, and yet, you ignore such, showing that you are inconsistent in your approach to the Bible and your fundamentalist assumptions and Evangelical theology and how you approach the Book of Mormon and other elements of "Mormonism."
As an aside, I have searched for, and found, Christ; the real one, unlike the one you and Begbour hold to. I am sorry that he turned in his genuine birthright of eternal value for a mess of pottage that is Evangelical Protestantism, teaching things that Jesus Christ never believed, and that the Bible, which you and Begbour hold to be the sole infallible rule of faith, actually refutes and would put under anathema (e.g., Sola Scriptura; alien imputed righteousness; eternal security; metaphysical trinitarianism and the Protestant/Catholic concept of the hypostatic union; creatio ex nihilo; Sola Fides; forensic justification, etc).
Best,
Robert Boylan
Tralee, Ireland.
Email #6
To: Robert Boylan
From: Doug Harris
Date: 21/05/2011
Believing with the heart is far easier than trying to explain things away with the head.
I will not continue this fruitless mind explanation but pray that the Holy Spirit will reveal Himself to you in your heart that will bring you to rest now and give you assurance for the future.
Email #7
To: Doug Harris
From: Robert Boylan
Date: 21/05/2011
Doug,
If you want to end this exchange, fair enough; I don't blame you, as your inability to deal with the facts and evidences presented to you is crystal clear, as it your inability to engage in biblical exegesis (bald assertions reveal only an ability to do eisegesis). Feel free to repeat mantras like "believing with the heart is far easier than trying to explain away things with the head." Funny thing is this--if a Latter-day Saint said such, you would just use that as evidence they are in a false teaching group/cult and trying to engage in self-decption and the like. Oh well; you can take a horse to water, but cannot make him drink.
I do pray that God, through His Holy Spirit, will show you the errors of your ways, before it is too late. God hates liars, Doug, and you, sadly, fall under that category (cf. Prov 6:16-19; Rev 21:8, etc).
Robert Boylan
Email #8
To: Robert Boylan
From: Doug Harris
Date: 21/05/2011
Whatever you want to believe!
Email #9
To: Doug Harris
From: Robert Boylan
Date: 09/09/11
Subject: Your comments on the 21st July Simply the Truth
Doug,
I came across an episode of Simply the Truth that featured, in part, John Begbour, that was posted on the ROT youtube page not too long ago (the show itself is dated 21st July). I was alluded to at about 24:25, and grossly misrepresented (see the end for more on this). You claim (again) that Micah 5:2 does not need any harmonisation (or "bending" as John Begbour put it) of any kind to be a text that has primary fulfillment with Christ (you also contrast this with your comments about Alma 7:10 about the perspicuity of the Bible in contrast to the Book of Mormon); I have two questions for you on this:
1. Why did Matthew rely upon a “bent” textual rendition of LXX Micah 5:2 (v. 1 in the LXX) if you are correct? Here is the LXX rendition:
καὶ σύ Βηθλεεμ οἶκος τοῦ Εφραθα ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν Ιουδα ἐκ σοῦ μοι ἐξελεύσεται τοῦ εἶναι εἰς ἄρχοντα ἐν τῷ Ισραηλ καὶ αἱ ἔξοδοι αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ἐξ ἡμερῶν αἰῶνος
NRSV: But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days.
Here is how Matthew uses the text at Matthew 2:6 (key differences highlighted):
καὶ σὺ Βηθλέεμ, γῆ Ἰούδα, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα· ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος, ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου τὸν Ἰσραήλ.
NRSV: 'And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel.'
Here, Matthew replaces του εφραθα tou ephratha “of Ephrathah” with γη Ιουδα ge Iouda “land of Judah.” Further, the term “by no means little” ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν replaces Micah's words that Bethlehem Ephratha was one of the little clans of Judah (notice also the stress on Bethlehem Ephratha being a tribe, not a geographical location which [i] I stated previously and you never interacted with and [ii] corresponds with texts like 1 Chronicles 4:4; the LXX translators seem to have held this view, added the term for household after Bethelehem, viz. οικος). I checked the Hebrew, and the text does not have the elements Matthew inserts into the text.
2. What are we to make of verse 5-6 in light of the Christ event, if your claims about Micah 5:2 is exegetically sound? None of these events happened in Christ's lifetime. Perhaps one would claim that it is a spiritual fulfillment, or that such will be fulfilled at the final coming of Christ, but the text states nothing of the kind, and one needs to engage in harmonisation (“bending of the text”) either way.
If read in light of 1st c. Jewish use (and textual re-working) of the Old Testament, Matthew 2:6 and like-texts (e.g., Matthew 2:15 and Hosea 11:1) makes sense (see the works of Dunn; Brodie; Fitzmyer, etc; such textual reworking of Scripture can be seen in then-contemporary texts of the OT, such as the Aramaic Targummim). However, in light of the a priori assumption of the nature of the NT use of the OT, and your use of such to attack the Book of Mormon (see below) one's suspicions are raised. See, for e.g., James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament and Joseph Fitzmyer's The One Who is the Come for more on such issues.
Further, you grossly misrepresented my arguments with respect to Alma 7:10 and the abuse thereof by yourself and Begbour in a previous show. I did not claim “that Jerusalem was actually Bethlehem.” My argument was that "Jerusalem" (esp. coupled with the term, "land") encompassed the locale environs, and would include Bethlehem. Such is seen in the biblical texts where the chief city encompassed the locale suburbs and other areas whose jurisdiction it was under (as well as other ANE texts like the Amarna tablets I referenced) I suggest you re-read what I sent you.
Such is only the tip of the ice-berg in terms of problems with your presentation in that programme and elsewhere (e.g., the false insinuation that Mormon Christology is Arian [Christ's existence is eternally backward in LDS theology, and there is no creation [ex nihlo] in LDS theology, per D&C 93 and other texts]; comments about the Apostasy and the New Testament; the bogus claim that "one can go to the original manuscripts of scripture" [we don't have the original NT or OT texts, and the early texts we have show strong fluidity; for e.g., p13 and p46 have 80% agreement but 20% disagreement with respect to Hebrews, as noted by scholars like Philip Comfort in his The Earliest NT Greek Manuscripts]). I would be more than willing to discuss such with you in detail.
Begbour himself made a few comments on the Spalding theory for Book of Mormon origins and other things. Do pass on this email with my email address (and the emails we had on Alma 7:10 previously) to him. I would like to raise a few issues he had on Spalding and other issues. That, and I would like to hear from him his justifications for making such time-worn claims, as it is rather clear that he was unaware of the exchange we had, notwithstanding my asking you to pass on such information to him.-
Robert Boylan