Satan among the Sons of God in Job

[Rob Bowman]

Zerinus,

Not that I'm adverse to discussing patristic theology, but I'm far more concerned to discuss what the Bible says about these issues.

Except that the earliest Christians believed in a plurality of Gods, that Jesus was a God lower in rank than God the Father and subordinate to Him, and that when the saints are deified they will be gods but lower in rank to Jesus who was Himself lower in rank and subordinate to His Father:

. . . and they have received the title of

[Ron Beron]

Here, for those who like the motto KISS, is a simple statement of the argument:

1. The Old Testament clearly identifies Jehovah as Elohim roughly a thousand times or more.

On this the OT is fairly schizophrenic in that at times it does identify YHWH as El(elohim), but it equally id's YHWH as a separate entity as well. In the first chapter (page 13) of John Day's "Yahweh and the gods and goddesses of Canaan" speaks of the relative schizophrenia of early Judaism.

What was the relationship between Yahweh and the Canaanite

god El? In the Old Testament Yahweh is frequently called El. The

question is raised whether Yahweh was a form of the god El from the

beginning or whether they were separate deities who only became equated

later. The Old Testament itself indicates some sense of discontinuity as

well as continuity, in that both the E and P sources imply that the

patriarchs did not know the name Yahweh and that this was first revealed

to Moses (Exo.3.13-15, E; 6.2-3, P), in contrast to the J source, where

the name Yahweh was already known in primaeval times (Gen. 4.26). The P

source specifically states that the patriarchs had previously known God

under the name El-Shaddai (Exod. 6.3).

In the nineteenth century J. Wellhausen believed

Yahweh to be the same as El, and more recently this has been

particularly argued by F.M. Cross and J.C. de Moor. However, the

following arguments may be brought against this. First, in the Ugaritic

texts the god El is revealed to be wholly benevolent in nature, whereas

Yahweh has a fierce as well as a kind side. Secondly, as T.N.D.

Mettinger has rightly emphasized, the earliest evidence, such as that

found in Judg. 5.4-5, associates Yahweh with the storm, which was not

something with which El was connected at all. Rather, this is

reminiscent of Baal. Thirdly, as for F.M. Cross

[zerinus]

I disagree. The portion of all biblical scholars actually participating in Bible translation is small, and they're generally the more conservative. The translations you've cited are pretty much the most conservative out there, as well. NRSV (among the less dogmatic translations) uses "Satan," but puts in the note that the Hebrew is "the Accuser." Irrespective, Bible translations are not really a good gauge of academic consensuses since they aren't accompanied by commentary or defenses of their choices. They can say whatever they want. I'll give you an example. Show me how all these translations you cited translate 1 Sam 13:1.

You are entitled to disagree; but as I said, I am not a Hebrew scholar, and I must go by what appears to me to be a consensus of opinion among scholars; and from my point of view the consensus of fifteen eminent translations, some old and some new, all of them made by committees of eminent translators, carries greater weight than your words or his.

[zerinus]

Jesus' wording in John 20:17 seems designed to avoid the very conclusion you posit. If we are God's sons in the same way that Jesus is, why didn't Jesus say simply "our Father and God," rather than the otherwise very cumbersome "my Father and your Father, and my God and your God"? It is striking that Jesus throughout the Gospels avoids saying "our Father" or "our God" including himself with his disciples. ("Our Father" in the so-called Lord's Prayer are words he taught them to say, not words he said himself in prayer.)

Now that to me seems a very strange kind of reasoning. I have no idea how you have come to that conclusion; but as I see it, the wording that Jesus uses is better calculated to emphasize the unity of relationship that Jesus and the rest of us have with the Father as the children of God.

Hebrews 2:10-12 doesn't say we are of the same category of being as Jesus.

It doesn't say that explicitly, but it implies it. That is the meaning that the language used is intended to convey. It describes Jesus as the "captain of our salvation". A "captain" is not of a different order of beings than the rest of the army. He is the same as them, but a higher ranking officer.

It says that we become God's sons and Jesus' brothers through what Jesus did for us.

It doesn't! It says that Jesus and the rest of us are "of one," which can only mean of the same order of beings.

Hebrews is quite clear that not everyone is genuinely God's children (e.g., Heb. 12:7-8 ). Elsewhere, the NT teaches that we can become God's children by God adopting us as his children (Rom. 8; Gal. 3-4) and by being "born" with new spiritual life from God (e.g., John 1:12-13).

True, but equally elsewhere unbelievers and Gentiles are called the children of God (see Acts 17:26-29).

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

Not that I'm adverse to discussing patristic theology, but I'm far more concerned to discuss what the Bible says about these issues.

Nice dodge, but it won't work! The Patristics had solid scriptural reasons for their beliefs. I have already discussed that at length in a couple of articles in my Blog which you can read here and here.

[maklelan]

You are entitled to disagree; but as I said, I am not a Hebrew scholar, and I must go by what appears to me to be a consensus of opinion among scholars; and from my point of view the consensus of fifteen eminent translations, some old and some new, all of them made by committees of eminent translators, carries greater weight than your words or his.

I already cited an article from last year's JBL that discusses this issue and cites quite a few scholars that agree to different degrees. You can see that article to see that the translations are not representative of a consensus. And you at least recognize that this appeal to authority is a fallacy, correct?

[zerinus]

I already cited an article from last year's JBL that discusses this issue and cites quite a few scholars that agree to different degrees. You can see that article to see that the translations are not representative of a consensus.

I went back and looked at your previous posts to see what article you were referring to, and I presume you are referring to the article you have referenced in this paragraph:

The word Satan is used, but as David has already pointed out, an individualized supernatural being with the name "Satan" who opposes God is not found in the Hebrew Bible. The word "adversary" is the best way to read the vast majority of the occurrences of the word, and as Dave and I have been discussing, ????, with the definite article, seems to refer to a station within God's divine council. I see it as a transition toward the adversary to God (although not quite there), and David sees it as an adversary to humanity operating on behalf of God. Again, Satan, as you are presenting him, is not found in the Hebrew Bible. A good recent article on this is a JBL article (128.1 [2009]: 91-106) by Ryan Stokes called "The Devil Made David Do It . . . Or Did He? The Nature, Identity, and Literary Origins of the Satan in 1 Chronicles 21:1."

Unfortunately I couldn't read the article, because it is subscription based; but in the light of the above paragraph I don't think I need to. Scholars say all kinds of things that are contradicted by modern revelation. For example, scholars generally believe that the original Isaiah did not write the whole of the book of Isaiah. They conclude that Isaiah chapters 40-66 was written by someone other than the original Isaiah who had written the earlier chapters. They also believe that many of the prophetic utterances in the earlier chapters, such as the graphic description of the fall of Babylon for example, were redacted from writings after the events had taken place. But the Book of Mormon tells us a different story. It tells us that the whole of the book of Isaiah was written by the one and the same ancient prophet Isaiah. So which one of the two stories do you think I am going to believe? The same goes for your analysis of the biblical references to Satan. When the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Moses, and the Book of Abraham, and the Doctrine and Covenants all affirm that Satan was known to the ancient patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament as a single individual, a spirit person, a fallen angel, who is evil and an enemy to God and to man and fights against them continually, and who is bent on our destruction, I don't care what the scholars say. I believe what the Lord has revealed in those books. Don't you think I should?

And you at least recognize that this appeal to authority is a fallacy, correct?

No! If the Book of Mormon agrees with them, then I don't!

[David Bokovoy]

No! If the Book of Mormon agrees with them, then I don't!

The Book of Mormon in no way addresses the traditional Protestant/Evangelical approach to the ha-Satan in Job you advocate. Moreover, I believe we can trace historically how the Book of Mormon authors came to understand the Satan concept and the view derives from Isaiah, not the book of Job. Lehi set the foundation for this concept used by later Book of Mormon authors/prophets.

[zerinus]

The Book of Mormon in no way addresses the traditional Protestant/Evangelical approach to the ha-Satan in Job you advocate.

By the Book of Mormon I meant all the modern revelations of the Church, including the books of Moses and Abraham where the doctrine of Satan is very well developed.

Moreover, I believe we can trace historically how the Book of Mormon authors came to understand the Satan concept and the view derives from Isaiah, not the book of Job. Lehi set the foundation for this concept used by later Book of Mormon authors/prophets.

[David Bokovoy]

Zerinus, since this is now taking this thread into a new subdivision I'm going to copy and paste your response onto the new thread.

Best

[USU78]

The reason I find David B's position to be more compelling, regardless whether modern scholarship (including comparative religious text analysis), is that he only needs to have Lehi have access to Isaiah in order to have Lehi arrive at a Christian understanding of "Lucifer" and the "Old Serpent" and the Fallen g-d/Angel.

Zerinus needs Lehi to have access to material that isn't referenced, as far as I know even indirectly, in the BoM narrative in order for Lehi to "suppose" all that he supposes about capital "S" Satan.

The simpler explanation is always to be preferred. David B provides the simpler one.

[ebeddoulos]

ebeddoulos,

Since you and I are not part of the same "contingent," I didn't find your story about good-natured ribbing among fellow soldiers at all reassuring. I won't deny that sometimes it's difficult to tell in online discussions what's meant seriously and what's meant in fun.

I'm afraid I can't agree with your claim that my argument was "nothing more than complexity trying to camouflage the simple." Should I take this as a serious criticism, or are you just playing with me again? Because it isn't true. My argument wasn't complex at all. Perhaps you are confusing detail with complexity. Here, for those who like the motto KISS, is a simple statement of the argument:

1. The Old Testament clearly identifies Jehovah as Elohim roughly a thousand times or more.

2. There are a few places in the OT where Jehovah is speaking and he refers to "God," seemingly in the third person. However:

a. There are also places in the OT where "Jehovah" is speaking and he refers to "Jehovah," and

b. There are also places in the OT where "Elohim" is speaking and he refers to "Elohim."

3. Therefore, the places where Jehovah is speaking and he refers to "God" do not negate the clear and repeated teaching of the OT that Jehovah is Elohim.

This argument will be too simple for Dan and David, but perhaps it will work for you.

Uh huh suuure. Intra contingent ribbing would never take place, would it? ANZACs never messed with the Brits and neither of them would never even think to diss the Yanks. Just like you, Mr. Ron

[Vance]

Angels are treated in various ways in the biblical texts. But one of the more interesting motifs in the latter portion of the Heb Bible, Qumran texts, and portions of the NT is the theme of priests as angels.

For example, in Malachi ('my messenger' or 'my angel') chapter two, the angel/priest accuses the other priests of not performing their duties adequately in, among other things, teaching the law:

For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger (Heb

malak,

also means angel) of the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 2:7 KJV)

??????????????? ?????? ????????????????? ????????? ??????????? ?????????? ????? ????????? ????????????????? ??????

This reflects the understanding that the priests are teachers of the law (cf. Lev 10:10-11; Deut 33:10; Jer 18:18; Ezekiel 44:23). And Malachi tells us that the priest should be an angel/messenger (????????? -malak) in the context of imparting knowledge of the LORD.

The Qumran community took this text and developed a whole motif of angel-priests. In 4Q400 fr I i (Songs for the Holocaust of the Sabbath), the priests (as angels) impart divine knowledge of judgment and mercy for those who repent. Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis makes a fairly good case for direct points of contact between the language here and Malachi 2:7 (All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead Sea Scrolls [Leiden: Brill, 2002], p. 284). In 4Q511 fr 35 (Songs of the Sage), God, angry at the wickedness of man, appoints a community of priests as angels to terrify and subdue the wicked.

The angel-priest theme is picked up the book of Revelation in the NT, where the priestly leaders of each church in Asia called to repentance were named angels (e.g., 2:1, 3:1, etc.). Later, seven angels would come out of the temple dressed in the clothing of priests (15:6) to receive vials full of the wrath of God against the wicked (15:7).

Another instance is implied in Zechariah 3, where Joshua is taken into the presence of the Divine Council before the angel of the Lord, along with the angelic accuser that David has been talking about. The angel tells Joshua:

[Droopy]

name='Rob Bowman' date='13 February 2010 - 08:42 AM' timestamp='1266075766' post='1208803549']

You know, this attempt to portray me as akin to Saul the Pharisee is bogus and offensive. Unlike Saul the pre-Christian Pharisee, I am a Christian. Like Paul the apostle, I believe in the risen and living Jesus Christ, not the stone letter of the Torah,

Evangelicals, perhaps preeminent among all Christian groups, have been leaders in the turning of the Bible from an authoritative source of spiritual knowledge and doctrine into a dead totem. Bibliolotry - solo scriptura and the closed canon - are the same fundamental dynamic at play in the move from the vertical revealed religion of ancient Israel to historical Talmudic Judaism and from the revealed, living religion of the NT to post apostolic "Christianity".

All that is being pointed out here is that you have no ministerial authority, and are ultimately, outside the Kingdom of God. Without revelation you are stuck with (and trapped within) purely human biblical exegesis and the "traditions of your fathers" with no reliable means of personal verification of your theological views.

What separated Saul the Pharisee from Paul the apostle was not that as a Pharisee he didn't believe in living prophets but as a Christian he did. Pharisees did not subscribe to a belief that no new prophets could arise. The issue was Jesus, pure and simple.

A large dodge, but so large it appears unnecessary. What separated Saul from Paul was Jesus, but not just that. What separated these two personae was the witness of the Holy Sprint to Saul that Jesus was the Christ. Paul was also, himself, a living special witness of the Savior, holding the mantel of that calling and speaking and teaching under the influence of the Holy Ghost. Without that experience of direct, personal revelation, Saul could never have become Paul in an authentic spiritual sense, because all he ever could have had was a belief in Jesus as the Messiah. He never could have known this for himself and without doubt.

Furthermore, my position with regard to angels as created beings has biblical support from a variety of texts, not just that one in Psalm 148:5. Indeed, one of the texts I cited was from that "Paul the prophet" you profess to admire (Col. 1:16).

Only if you cherry pick your texts and import your own useful interpretations of the language used. The claim that angels are "incorporeal" has not the slightest basis in any biblical text. The men who asked the men of Galilee who they were seeking do not appear to have been incorporeal. The angels that entered Lot's house ate, indeed, feasted with him.

Its good to see the OT author of this passage believed that neo-Platonism was compatible with earthly gastrointestinal activities.

[Rob Bowman]

ebeddoulos,

You wrote:

Your

[Rob Bowman]

Droopy,

You wrote:

Evangelicals, perhaps preeminent among all Christian groups, have been leaders in the turning of the Bible from an authoritative source of spiritual knowledge and doctrine into a dead totem. Bibliolotry - solo scriptura and the closed canon - are the same fundamental dynamic at play in the move from the vertical revealed religion of ancient Israel to historical Talmudic Judaism and from the revealed, living religion of the NT to post apostolic "Christianity".

You may think you come across smart and knowledgeable when you write something like this, but all you're doing is repeating a popular stereotypical caricature.

You wrote:

What separated Saul from Paul was Jesus, but not just that. What separated these two personae was the witness of the Holy Sprint to Saul that Jesus was the Christ. Paul was also, himself, a living special witness of the Savior, holding the mantel of that calling and speaking and teaching under the influence of the Holy Ghost. Without that experience of direct, personal revelation, Saul could never have become Paul in an authentic spiritual sense, because all he ever could have had was a belief in Jesus as the Messiah. He never could have known this for himself and without doubt.

Do you say this based on your "living religion" alone, or would you happen to have anything in the New Testament about Paul to back this up?

[Rob Bowman]

Ron,

You wrote:

On this the OT is fairly schizophrenic in that at times it does identify YHWH as El(elohim), but it equally id's YHWH as a separate entity as well.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The OT indisputably identifies YHWH and El or Elohim roughly a thousand times. The number of alleged texts that distinguish YHWH from El/Elohim is miniscule by comparison.

[Droopy]

Your

[Droopy]

Evangelicals, perhaps preeminent among all Christian groups, have been leaders in the turning of the Bible from an authoritative source of spiritual knowledge and doctrine into a dead totem. Bibliolotry - solo scriptura and the closed canon - are the same fundamental dynamic at play in the move from the vertical revealed religion of ancient Israel to historical Talmudic Judaism and from the revealed, living religion of the NT to post apostolic "Christianity".

Do you say this based on your "living religion" alone, or would you happen to have anything in the New Testament about Paul to back this up?

It can be demonstrated, through critical argument that "historic Christianity", as you might term it, cannot be found in the biblical texts. This does not mean that fundamental aspects of it, such as belief in God, acceptance of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, acceptance of the continuation of existence after death, accountability to God for our behavior here etc., are not accepted by all Christians and cannot be found in the Bible. The problem is when the nature and attributes of God, the purpose of our creation and existence, the purpose of the creation and existence of the universe, ultimate questions of what we are as entities, our origin and destiny etc. are the subject of discussion, "historic" Christianity either has virtually nothing to say on these matters, or what it has to say is clearly derivative of extrabiblcal tradition and interpretation.

Protestantism, not the least of which would be its modern evangelical variety, would be unintelligible to NT Christians were they to be brought into close proximity to it. The NT itself contains virtually none of its core doctrines (except, again, on a very rudimentary level, a level shared by Mormons and all other Christian groups).

[Rob Bowman]

Droopy,

You wrote:

It is probably time to remember that Mr. Bowman cut his teeth in the evangelical counter-cult world under the tutelage of Walter Martin and later, Hank Hanegraaf, two individuals of such little intellectual credibility as to render them wholly unsuitable to any serious discussion of theological issues among serious interlocutors. Especially in Martin's case, "exegetical rationalization, exaggeration, and hyperbole" were the least of this individual's weaknesses as a critic of the Church (and much else).

How embarrassing for you. You are engaging in classic anti-anti-Mormon antics here, employing guilt by association and ad hominem in place of reasoned argumentation.

I have refuted this nonsense once already on this forum. I was never "under the tutelage of Walter Martin" and certainly in no sense of Hank Hanegraaff. I worked at CRI as an employee of Martin for four years (plus a year part-time while away at school). By the time I got to CRI, I already had a Master's degree in biblical studies and theology from an accredited institution (Fuller Theological Seminary) and had been engaged in apologetics for about ten years. I rarely saw Martin, as he was either doing his radio show or out of town speaking somewhere most of the time. When Martin and I did discuss theology or other substantive issues, I was often disagreeing with him. His published materials and publicly expressed views on Mormonism played virtually no role whatever in the formation of my own views about the LDS religion. I worked in the office at CRI for about one and a half years when Hanegraaff was president, and got what I call "the left boot of fellowship" from him (i.e., I was fraudulently "laid off"). Disagreeing with Martin was reasonably safe; disagreeing with Hanegraaff (about much of anything) was not. Hanegraaff is not only a rank amateur in terms of scholarship (as even he admits), he is ethically challenged (which of course he does not admit). I left CRI nearly twenty years ago. In that time, I have established my own track record through my published works (twelve books, nearly sixty articles, including peer-reviewed journal articles), public debates, classroom teaching, online dialogues, and so forth. I work hard to treat people in other religions honestly and respectfully, to describe and critique their views fairly and accurately, and I have a good reputation in this regard. I have Mormon friends who acknowledge my good faith in such matters, despite our religious differences.

I respectfully request an apology for this rant of yours.

[Droopy]

How embarrassing for you. You are engaging in classic anti-anti-Mormon antics here, employing guilt by association and ad hominem in place of reasoned argumentation.

The only embarrassment should be, in my view, to have ever been associated with Martin at all, in any capacity.

I have refuted this nonsense once already on this forum. I was never "under the tutelage of Walter Martin" and certainly in no sense of Hank Hanegraaff. I worked at CRI as an employee of Martin for four years (plus a year part-time while away at school). By the time I got to CRI, I already had a Master's degree in biblical studies and theology from an accredited institution (Fuller Theological Seminary) and had been engaged in apologetics for about ten years. I rarely saw Martin, as he was either doing his radio show or out of town speaking somewhere most of the time. When Martin and I did discuss theology or other substantive issues, I was often disagreeing with him. His published materials and publicly expressed views on Mormonism played virtually no role whatever in the formation of my own views about the LDS religion. I worked in the office at CRI for about one and a half years when Hanegraaff was president, and got what I call "the left boot of fellowship" from him (i.e., I was fraudulently "laid off"). Disagreeing with Martin was reasonably safe; disagreeing with Hanegraaff (about much of anything) was not. Hanegraaff is not only a rank amateur in terms of scholarship (as even he admits), he is ethically challenged (which of course he does not admit). I left CRI nearly twenty years ago. In that time, I have established my own track record through my published works (twelve books, nearly sixty articles, including peer-reviewed journal articles), public debates, classroom teaching, online dialogues, and so forth. I work hard to treat people in other religions honestly and respectfully, to describe and critique their views fairly and accurately, and I have a good reputation in this regard. I have Mormon friends who acknowledge my good faith in such matters, despite our religious differences.

I respectfully request an apology for this rant of yours.

Then I do apologize, if your relationship with him (them) was as tenuous or tertiary as you claim. The only aspect of this that I would continue to disagree upon would be your leaving Martin out of the "ethically challenged" category, a category within which Martin, within the counter-cult movement as well as his personal life, had few if any peers (save perhaps the relentlessly pathological Ed Decker).

[cdowis]

I have refuted this nonsense once already on this forum. I was never "under the tutelage of Walter Martin" and certainly in no sense of Hank Hanegraaff. I worked at CRI as an employee of Martin for four years (plus a year part-time while away at school). By the time I got to CRI, I already had a Master's degree in biblical studies and theology from an accredited institution (Fuller Theological Seminary) and had been engaged in apologetics for about ten years.

Of course. I never actually meant to associate you with Walter Martin or Hankie -- I was just being annoying.

Anyway, I seem to remember you over at the Compuserve BBS. Didn't you work with Robert McKay at UMI for awhile? Or am I thinking of someone else.

[cdowis]

This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The OT indisputably identifies YHWH and El or Elohim roughly a thousand times. The number of alleged texts that distinguish YHWH from El/Elohim is miniscule by comparison.

The OT often does not clearly distinguish between the two. This is where "as far as it is translated" comes into play. Actually, a better statement is "as far as it has been transmitted correctly". People were mucking around in those writings, at least in the early days, e.g. the school of the prophets. The students thought they were smarter than the master.

Reminds me of the time I heard one of these bright boys from the seminary make the amazing statement, "We now know more about the nature of God than the prophets." Basically he thought they were rather naive, and the theologians at the schools have gotten it all figured out.

[Ron Beron]

Ron,

You wrote:

This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The OT indisputably identifies YHWH and El or Elohim roughly a thousand times. The number of alleged texts that distinguish YHWH from El/Elohim is miniscule by comparison.

While I appreciate your characterization of my opinion as a "gross misrepresentation" you have failed to address the real expert in this case; John Day and the quote I left. Day's opinion is not a minor opinion but representative of the norm and not an exception to it. If you feel I posted this statement in error can you post substantial evidences to the contrary? I would love to see it. Thanks.

[Ron Beron]

Droopy,

You wrote:

How embarrassing for you. You are engaging in classic anti-anti-Mormon antics here, employing guilt by association and ad hominem in place of reasoned argumentation.

I have refuted this nonsense once already on this forum. I was never "under the tutelage of Walter Martin" and certainly in no sense of Hank Hanegraaff. I worked at CRI as an employee of Martin for four years (plus a year part-time while away at school). By the time I got to CRI, I already had a Master's degree in biblical studies and theology from an accredited institution (Fuller Theological Seminary) and had been engaged in apologetics for about ten years. I rarely saw Martin, as he was either doing his radio show or out of town speaking somewhere most of the time. When Martin and I did discuss theology or other substantive issues, I was often disagreeing with him. His published materials and publicly expressed views on Mormonism played virtually no role whatever in the formation of my own views about the LDS religion. I worked in the office at CRI for about one and a half years when Hanegraaff was president, and got what I call "the left boot of fellowship" from him (i.e., I was fraudulently "laid off"). Disagreeing with Martin was reasonably safe; disagreeing with Hanegraaff (about much of anything) was not. Hanegraaff is not only a rank amateur in terms of scholarship (as even he admits), he is ethically challenged (which of course he does not admit). I left CRI nearly twenty years ago. In that time, I have established my own track record through my published works (twelve books, nearly sixty articles, including peer-reviewed journal articles), public debates, classroom teaching, online dialogues, and so forth. I work hard to treat people in other religions honestly and respectfully, to describe and critique their views fairly and accurately, and I have a good reputation in this regard. I have Mormon friends who acknowledge my good faith in such matters, despite our religious differences.

I respectfully request an apology for this rant of yours.

Fuller is a first rate college. How did you feel when the president of that fine college apologized for sinning against the LDS by misrepresenting their beliefs? Never mind answering...I don't want to disrupt the thread more than I have, but I do have respect for Fuller.