Institute for Religious Research Study Guide Challenge

[Bernard Gui]

In a recently locked thread, Rob Bowman gave the following challenge:

There is over 300 pages of material in my Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide. I challenge you and everyone else here to read through it and honestly assess whether the study guide is fair-minded at least in attempting to describe Mormon beliefs accurately.

So, I went to his website and selected a topic at random: his discussion of chapter 47 of the GP manual.

• The Book of Mormon teaches that God the Father is a person of spirit, and teaches that Jesus Christ before coming to the earth was also a person of spirit.

The Book of Alma repeatedly refers to God as “the Great Spirit” (Alma 18:2-5, 11, 18, 26, 28; 19:25, 27; 22:9-11; cf. 31:15-17). No Book of Mormon text says or implies that God the Father has a physical body.

Unfortunately, Bowman neglected to check the context of his quotes. He is citing

Lamanite and heretical Zoramite beliefs...

Alma 18:2-5, 11, 18, 26, 28

Lamoni, Lamanite king, to Ammon

19:25, 27

Lamanites who gathered in Lamoni’s house

22:9-11

Lamoni’s father, king of Lamanites, to Aaron

31:15-17

Zoramites addressing God in their heretical prayer.

This was way too easy.

Bernard

PS...Rob...please credit Bernard Gui when you make this correction on your web site, since

I did the work for you.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

And, just a bit down the page:

The Book of Mormon’s teaching that Christ before his physical birth had a “body” of spirit is a significant departure from the teaching of orthodox, traditional Christianity, which understands Christ’s divine nature to be incorporeal. Still, in other respects the Book of Mormon doctrine of God is surprisingly close to orthodox theology. It affirms clearly that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God; it teaches that God exists without change as God from eternity to eternity, as the Great Spirit, and that he is the sole Creator of all that exists. The Book of Mormon also gives no support to the notion that human beings can become Gods.

Yes, it does. In speaking of the reward awaiting the three Nephite disciples, Jesus said to them,

3 Nephi 28:10

And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall

sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be

full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye

shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the

Father and I are one;

In LDS theology, "Fulness of joy" is synonymous with exaltation,

or becoming as God is:

D&C 138:17

Their sleeping dust was to be restored unto its perfect frame, bone to his bone,

and the sinews and the flesh upon them, the spirit and the body to be united

never again to be divided, that they might receive a fulness of joy.

Gospel Principles, chapter 2

God is not only our Ruler and Creator; He is also our Heavenly Father. All men and women are literally the sons and daughters of God. “Man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal [physical] body” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith [1998], 335). Every person who was ever born on earth is our spirit brother or sister. Because we are the spirit children of God, we have inherited the potential to develop His divine qualities. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can become like our Heavenly Father and receive a fulness of joy.

Bernard

(please give credit where credit is due)

Edited January 15, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

And down a bit more, Bowman says,

The Book of Mormon teaches that human beings are creatures originating as physical beings here on earth.

The Book of Mormon repeatedly refers to Adam and Eve as “our first parents” (1 Ne. 5:11; 2 Ne. 2:15; 9:9; Jacob 4:3; Mos. 16:3; Alma 12:21, 26; 42:2, 7; Hel. 6:26; Ether 8:25). There is no suggestion anywhere that we lived in heaven as children of heavenly parents. As quoted above, the Book of Mormon states that without God we would not even exist (2 Nephi 2:13-14).

On the contrary, there are several very important Book of Mormon passages that teach the purpose of the atonement of Jesus Christ is to bring men back, or restore them, into the presence of God. For example,

Alma 42:22-26

But there is a law given,

and a punishment affixed,

and a repentance granted;

which repentance mercy claimeth;

otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law

and the law inflicteth the punishment;

if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed,

and God would cease to be God.

But God ceaseth not to be God,

and mercy claimeth the penitent,

and mercy cometh because of the atonement;

and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead;

and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God;

and thus they are restored into his presence,

to be judged according to their works,

according to the law and justice.

For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands,

and also mercy claimeth all which is her own;

and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.

What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice?

I say unto you, Nay; not one whit.

If so, God would cease to be God.

And thus God bringeth about his great and eternal purposes,

which were prepared from the foundation of the world.

And thus cometh about the salvation and the redemption of men,

and also their destruction and misery.

Men could not be brought back into God's presence if they were not there before, from

the foundation of the world.

Bernard

Edited January 15, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Nephi wrote,

Wo unto all those who die in their sins;

for they shall return to God, and behold his face,

and remain in their sins.

2 Nephi 9:38

One cannot return to a place in which one has never been.

Bernard

Edited January 15, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Anijen]

It has been obvious to me since the beginning of Bowman coming here that he has an agenda, and he regularly disregards experts; for example I remember reading a post where Hamblin schooled him and a while back so did Maclelan. However Bowman disregarded their points. I hardly read his drivel anymore.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Anijen

[mfbukowski]

In a recently locked thread, Rob Bowman gave the following challenge:

So, I went to his website and selected a topic at random: his discussion of chapter 47 of the GP manual.

Unfortunately, Bowman neglected to check the context of his quotes. He is citing

Lamanite and heretical Zoramite beliefs...

Alma 18:2-5, 11, 18, 26, 28

Lamoni, Lamanite king, to Ammon

19:25, 27

Lamanites who gathered in Lamoni’s house

22:9-11

Lamoni’s father, king of Lamanites, to Aaron

31:15-17

Zoramites addressing God in their heretical prayer.

This was way too easy.

Bernard

PS...Rob...please credit Bernard Gui when you make this correction on your web site, since

I did the work for you.

Wish I could give you about 57 rep points for that one. Maybe 58.

[mfbukowski]

And, just a bit down the page:

Yes, it does. In speaking of the reward awaiting the three Nephite disciples, Jesus said to them,

In LDS theology, "Fulness of joy" is synonymous with exaltation,

or becoming as God is:

Bernard

(please give credit where credit is due)

58 More.

[altersteve]

In his discussion of chapter 41 of Gospel Principles, Mr. Bowman writes:

The LDS Church teaches that spirits are corporeal, material beings.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. "Corporeal" means "having a physical body," "fleshy," or "tangible." The Church does not teach that spirits are any of these things.

[altersteve]

Also, with the issue about the Book of Mormon referring to God as the "Great Spirit," it can also be pointed out that these verses describe missionary efforts teaching the Lamanites about God. The Lamanites believe in what they call the "Great Spirit," and the Nephite missionaries point out that this Great Spirit is God. It is not meant to be a statement about the nature of God; all these missionaries are doing is building on common beliefs.

[Scott Lloyd]

[sigh]

We could probably go on for 50 pages or more correcting Rob point by point where he has taken LDS scripture/doctrine/beliefs/quotations out of context by refusing to view them with anything other than a conservative Protestant frame of reference. And if the past is any indication, he will resist such correction, insisting in effect that he knows better than knowledgable Mormons what Mormonism teaches.

[Storm Rider]

Rob, it is rather sad that you issue a challenge and then so quickly is it met and proved so simple to defeat. Please tell me you will correct your many errors? And please don't ignore the question. A simple yes or no will do. Cheers,

[Bernard Gui]

Wish I could give you about 57 rep points for that one. Maybe 58.

Thanks. 1 would be ok, since I don't have many. Perhaps other readers can select a random article and report

on what they find. If Rob is going to put out this material, we should help him check it for accuracy. We could be listed on the page as editors. 300 pages on the GP manual? That's a lot of stuff to edit. Maybe some monetary compensation would be appropriate.

Bernard

Edited January 15, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

Unfortunately, Bowman neglected to check the context of his quotes. He is citing

Lamanite and heretical Zoramite beliefs...

This should not be very hard for a reader of normal intelligence to comprehend.

Since Rob strikes me as having normal or better intelligence, I must, alas, conclude that Rob has been careless in this instance in describing Mormon belief and thus contradicts his own claim that he tries to do so accurately.

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks. 1 would be ok, since I don't have many. Perhaps other readers can select a random article and report

on what they find. If Rob is going to put out this material, we should help him check it for accuracy. We could be listed on the page as editors. 300 pages on the GP manual? That's a lot of stuff to edit. Maybe some

monetary compensation would be appropriate.

Bernard

I'm a writer and editor by profession. I'd undertake the task for the same hourly rate at which I earn my livelihood. Or I'd donate my time for an equivalent monetary donation by Rob to the missionary fund of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Maybe I'll do some for free, but like you, I think I should be credited on his page.

[Storm Rider]

I think the situation is much more devious than simple mistakes. He is certainly smart enough to know better and he has been on this forum long enough to have heard correct doctrine. What he does is publish half-truths and taking statements out of context in order to lead people to a incorrect, false impression of the LDS Church and its members. Rob, please correct me if I am wrong in these statements or explain how your work can be so filled with errors.

[Bernard Gui]

This should not be very hard for a reader of normal intelligence to comprehend. Since Rob strikes me as having normal or better intelligence, I must, alas, conclude that Rob has been careless in this instance in describing Mormon belief and thus contradicts his own claim that he tries to do so accurately.

It would be easy to make this error...doing a word search, finding what one is looking for, and then using it without checking the context. I'm sure Rob does not do this, so he must have a good reason for making this assertion.

Bernard

Edited January 15, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

In his discussion of GP chapter 23, Rob claims,

In previous installments of this study guide (see especially chapters 13, 14, and 16) we have explained why the LDS doctrines and claims concerning its “priesthood authority” are unbiblical. With regard to the sacrament, the New Testament says nothing to indicate that any special priesthood authority or ecclesiastical office is required to administer this or any other ordinance (such as baptism). The New Testament refers to the sacrament in only four places (Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:15-20; 1 Corinthians 10:16-22; 11:20-34), and none of these passages says anything about who is to “administer” the sacrament.

This silence of the Bible is not, as Mormons sometimes argue, evidence that the Bible is “unclear” about the matter. Rather, the Bible’s silence is evidence of the indifference or unimportance of the matter. What God does not legislate or dictate in his Word is left for us to decide on the basis of general principles of wisdom and Christian values.

There are many things on which the Bible is silent. Is there a scripture Rob can point to that supports his assertion that what isn't in the Bible doesn't matter?

With regard to authority to administer the sacrament, it was only a few decades into the history of the early Christian church that Ignatius wrote to the Smyrnaeans,

Make sure that no step affecting the church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop's sanction.

The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by

some person authorized by him.

Nor is it permissible to conduct baptisms or agape feasts without the bishop. On the other hand,

whatever does have his sanction can be sure of God's approval too. This is the way to make

certain of the soundness and validity of anything you do.

Which version of the authority to "pass the sacrament" best matches Ignatius' instructions? Evangelical or Mormon?

Bernard

Edited January 15, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

It would be easy to make this error...doing a word search, finding what one is looking for, and then using it without checking the context.

Yes, being careless is very easy.

I'm sure Rob does not do this, so he must have a good reason for making this assertion.

It occurs to me that taking something out of context is a consequence of one of the following or any combination thereof:

-- ignorance

-- carelessness

-- malice

I wonder which of the three Rob is willing to cop to.

[Calm]

Rather than helping hm correct his errors, I think it would be better to let them be for the most part as that way when people go to read the actual stuff at lds.org (I believe he has links to the actual lessons to allow people to read the quotes in context themselves, if not then it would demonstrate a desire to deceive imo) so that people can see that his interpretation is through an overly biased filter and thus it would be better if they really want to learn what LDS believe that they just read the manual themselves.

If he does give LDS credit on his pages for making corrections, he can make it appear as if his work is LDS approved. Do you really want that?

Edited January 15, 2012 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

Rather than helping hm correct his errors, I think it would be better to let them be for the most part as that way when people go to read the actual stuff at lds.org (I believe he has links to the actual lessons to allow people to read the quotes in context themselves, if not then it would demonstrate a desire to deceive imo) so that people can see that his interpretation is through an overly biased filter and thus it would be better if they really want to learn what LDS believe that they just read the manual themselves.

If he does give LDS credit on his pages for making corrections, he can make it appear as if his work is LDS approved. Do you really want that?

I was mostly being facetious, though the thought of Rob contributing monetarily to the LDS missionary fund, even indirectly, seems rather delicious to me.

[Xander]

Alma 18:2-5, 11, 18, 26, 28

Lamoni, Lamanite king, to Ammon

While Bernard is performing his victory dance over a perceived win against the evil anti-Mormon naysayer, while claiming he had chosen something "at random" for the rhetorical purpose of implying that virtually everything Bowman said was in error, and while his supporters are busy patting him on the back with worthless "reputation points," it seems no one was actually willing to check the context as Bernard claims to have done. No surprise there, so let me enlighten you as to what it is the context actually says. First, according to Bernard, it is Ammon who is being taught this "heretical" doctrine by King Lamoni. In reality, it is something Ammon took for granted:

26 And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?

27 And he said, Yea.

28 And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?

29 And he said: Yea, I believe that he created all things which are in the earth; but I do not know the heavens.

30 And Ammon said unto him: The heavens is a place where God dwells and all his holy angels.

As you can see, there is no indication that Ammon disagreed with Lamoni's numerous references to the Great Spirit = God, and in fact he clearly agrees with him in verse 28. I think Bowman's overall point is that Joseph Smith's theology changed over time, which is really an indisputable fact.

Bernard then assures us that Bowman is wrong about chapter 22 because:

22:9-11

Lamoni’s father, king of Lamanites, to Aaron

Again, no one bothered to check Bernard's "context." In reality, just as Ammon was speaking this doctrine to Lamoni in chapter 18, it is Aaron who speaks it to him in 22:8-11:

8 And now when Aaron heard this, his heart began to rejoice, and he said: Behold, assuredly as thou livest, O king, there is a God.

9 And the king said: Is God that Great Spirit that brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem?

10 And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and he acreated all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this?

11 And he said: Yea, I believe that the Great Spirit created all things, and I desire that ye should tell me concerning all these things, and I will abelieve thy words.

Gee, looks like Rob Bowman was right all along. The Book of Mormon really does teach that God is a spirit.

That was easy.

[selek1]

While Bernard is performing his victory dance over a perceived win against the evil anti-Mormon naysayer, while claiming he had chosen something "at random" for the rhetorical purpose of implying that virtually everything Bowman said was in error, and while his supporters are busy patting him on the back with worthless "reputation points," it seems no one was actually willing to check the context as Bernard claims to have done. No surprise there, so let me enlighten you as to what it is the context actually says. First, according to Bernard, it is Ammon who is being taught this "heretical" doctrine by King Lamoni. In reality, it is something Ammon took for granted:

Asked and answered in Post #9

That was easy.

Indeed. Like a royal flush in a dirty hand of poker, you appear to have hit the trifecta mentioned in Post #18.

[Storm Rider]

While Bernard is performing his victory dance over a perceived win against the evil anti-Mormon naysayer, while claiming he had chosen something "at random" for the rhetorical purpose of implying that virtually everything Bowman said was in error, and while his supporters are busy patting him on the back with worthless "reputation points," it seems no one was actually willing to check the context as Bernard claims to have done. No surprise there, so let me enlighten you as to what it is the context actually says. First, according to Bernard, it is Ammon who is being taught this "heretical" doctrine by King Lamoni. In reality, it is something Ammon took for granted:

As you can see, there is no indication that Ammon disagreed with Lamoni's numerous references to the Great Spirit = God, and in fact he clearly agrees with him in verse 28. I think Bowman's overall point is that Joseph Smith's theology changed over time, which is really an indisputable fact.

Bernard then assures us that Bowman is wrong about chapter 22 because:

Again, no one bothered to check Bernard's "context." In reality, just as Ammon was speaking this doctrine to Lamoni in chapter 18, it is Aaron who speaks it to him in 22:8-11:

Gee, looks like Rob Bowman was right all along. The Book of Mormon really does teach that God is a spirit.

That was easy.

I think the quote is stupid is as stupid does. I really liked that movie and its simple straight forward approach to common sense.

[altersteve]

While Bernard is performing his victory dance over a perceived win against the evil anti-Mormon naysayer, while claiming he had chosen something "at random" for the rhetorical purpose of implying that virtually everything Bowman said was in error, and while his supporters are busy patting him on the back with worthless "reputation points," it seems no one was actually willing to check the context as Bernard claims to have done. No surprise there, so let me enlighten you as to what it is the context actually says. First, according to Bernard, it is Ammon who is being taught this "heretical" doctrine by King Lamoni. In reality, it is something Ammon took for granted:

As you can see, there is no indication that Ammon disagreed with Lamoni's numerous references to the Great Spirit = God, and in fact he clearly agrees with him in verse 28. I think Bowman's overall point is that Joseph Smith's theology changed over time, which is really an indisputable fact.

Bernard then assures us that Bowman is wrong about chapter 22 because:

Again, no one bothered to check Bernard's "context." In reality, just as Ammon was speaking this doctrine to Lamoni in chapter 18, it is Aaron who speaks it to him in 22:8-11:

Gee, looks like Rob Bowman was right all along. The Book of Mormon really does teach that God is a spirit.

That was easy.

Did you even read my post at all (post #9)?

I further point out that Ammon was mistaken for the Great Spirit, and yet he clearly had a physical body. Obviously, being a "Great Spirit" did not preclude being corporeal. And furthermore, the God which is being referred to here is Jesus Christ, who, at the time this conversation between Ammon and Lamoni took place, had not entered into mortality to receive a body. So there is absolutely nothing wrong with this verse either way.

So, sorry, try again.

Edited January 15, 2012 by altersteve

[orion88]

In LDS theology, "Fulness of joy" is synonymous with exaltation,

or becoming as God is:

The 1997 Gospel Principles says in chapter 2 page 14, "If we passed our tests, we would

receive the fulness of joy that our heavenly parents have received. (See D&C 93:30–34.)"

See http://lds.org/gospe...t%20Here_01.pdf

When I looked at the 2009 version, it says, "If we passed our tests, we would receive the

fulness of joy that our Heavenly Father has received. (See D&C 93:30–34.)

Mr. Smith taught something similar on page 305 of the 1997 version but this part was

removed from the 2009 version - "This is the way our Heavenly Father became God.

It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He

was once a man like us; . . .God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the

same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345–46)."