Van Beek writes “[the prophets'] predicting of the future is highly unreliable… This raises the moot theological question whether the future is knowable at all, for anyone, even for divinity….Joseph never ventured into the ‘omni’s’ of God (‘omniscient, omnipotent’)….The consequences for the ‘knowability’ of the future are complex, but Joseph’s theology and anthropology (they almost conflate) do raise questions about the reliability of detailed predictions of the future.”

I don’t agree that “Joseph never ventured into the ‘omni’s’ of God.” The idea that God cannot know the future because it would interfere with free agency has been kicked around for a long time, but the scriptures and commentary provided by Joseph, as well as his life experience, directly address the question. The BoM, D&C, and PoGP give us more detailed accounts of God’s omniscience, specifically with regard to what we call the future, than any Biblical account. As examples, consider Mormon’s inclusion of the small plates because God knew that Joseph would lose the 116 pages 1400 years later; Samuel’s prophecies about the signs attending the birth and death of Christ; Nephi’s precise prediction of what the murderer would say and do when confronted; Enoch’s detailed vision of the future, including the crucifixion of Christ; and other examples.

Besides, we know from physics that past, present, and future are all relative and a person can travel back and forth through them if at a sufficient distance.

Perhaps the ambiguity van Beek alludes to reflects prophetic concern about the effects on free agency of specific revelations of the future, but I think Joseph’s contributions laid to rest the question about whether God is omniscient.

I don’t think this issue is moot. A belief that God is omniscient, at least with respect to us, seems a prerequisite for exercising faith in God, and this is just another area in which Joseph supplied the doctrine that the Bible inadequately provided.

The temple version might seem more symbolic and timeless—it certainly seems like a comfortable thing for us to say—but I think that Joseph and Brigham took Adam and Eve very literally, and also as types for us, but not mere symbols. Certainly I disagree with the claimed progression from historic to symbolic in the Book of Mormon to Moses to Abraham. In the first place, it is not the Book of Mormon where Adam and Eve are quoted commenting on their transgression; it is the Book of Moses. Moreover, the Book of Moses uncompromisingly strengthens the historical nature of the creation account relative to Genesis by placing the narrative squarely in Moses’ first-person words and adding Moses’ visionary preface that the Lord is telling him why and how he did the creation. The Book of Abraham is also given in the first-person factual reporting mode. With its talk of set times and revolutions and so on it seems fixated on the functional mechanics of the universe. When it comes to the Genesis chapters, the Book of Abraham contains phraseology that makes it the version most looked to by those seeking some sort of quasi-realistic match up with modern scientific accounts—a clear sign it strikes moderns as the most plausibly historic account of all. (There may even be some who wish the temple version showed more dependence on Abraham instead of Moses, viewing the choice of the latter as a step backwards.)

“I do think we tend to homogenize prophets and to assign them all the qualities we would like them to have: knowledge of the future, impeccable lives, imposing and charismatic personalities, organizers and statesmen, all the while being the mouthpieces of the Lord. The reality is more messy, more humane and definitely more convincing: there are many sorts of prophets, but struggle is almost always part of the calling: struggle with the calling, struggle to get the Lord’s ear, and the perennial struggle to get the Word of God, struggle for forgiveness.”

I’m thinking about the talk about republicanism and the dangers of theocracy.

I think this is an interesting idea although personally I feel it is unlikely and lends too much intellectual credit to the detractors of Mormonism. I don’t imagine that either consciously or subconciously they were driven to bloodshed because they were afraid to lose the blank canvas that America provided. I believe rather, that they reverted back to one of the most base of human reactions, fear and anger towards that which we lack understanding of. I guess it’s sort of an Occam’s Razor type theory. But hey, they were simple men, those who both encouraged and performed viloent acts