Using The Bible To Refute Lds Doctrine

[Bill Hamblin]

Looks like Bowman has left the building!

[Calm]

Looks like Bowman has left the building!

It's the weekend, he may be paid for 9 to 5 M-F rather than by the hour.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

It's the weekend, he may be paid for 9 to 5 M-F rather than by the hour.

I often (in fact, usually) post here evenings and weekends, so your comment is incorrect (as well as prejudicial in its implications). I simply have far too much on my plate right now, and in fact that will be the situation for the next four months. I have four trips coming up in the next four months, and I have a lot of extra responsibilities beyond my salaried position.

[Bill Hamblin]

Fair enough. However, it still seems odd, given the constraints on your time, that you were able to start another thread and participate there extensively.

[Rob Bowman]

Fair enough. However, it still seems odd, given the constraints on your time, that you were able to start another thread and participate there extensively.

Already explained.

[Calm]

prejudicial in its implications.

are you suggesting that someone here doesn't already know what you do for a living and you think it would be better for them not to know?

Or are you just suggesting bringing it up somehow makes you look bad?

I don't keep track of the hours you post btw so I have no clue what your usual pattern is.

Edited September 25, 2011 by calmoriah

[Bernard Gui]

One woman I know through the internet likens us (all humanity) to puppets doomed to torment, from whom the Calvinist God picks a few (at random), and saves them from the flames. But puppets we are, and puppets they, the “saved” will always be, being predestined to their reward, even as we have always been doomed to burn and suffer for all eternity.

To me, Calvinism is salvation by lottery, but you don't even get to buy a ticket.

You either win or lose, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Bernard

[LeSellers]

To me, Calvinism is salvation by lottery, but you don't even get to buy a ticket.

You either win or lose, and there's nothing you can do about it.

I was going to use the word "lottery", but I didn't want all the baggage it connotes. Yours is as close to right regarding Calvinism as anything I've read.

Have you read Instituts? As I said, I can't recall anything with more logical fallacies and inconsistencies. There are whole chapters devoted to ad hominem and begging the question.

Lehi

[Bill Hamblin]

Based on his evasions, it seems pretty clear to me that Rob Bowman does, in fact, subscribe to some variation of the "Spiritual Warfare" form of anti-Mormonism. Based on the Evangelical interpretation of Eph. 6:12, the various forms the Spiritual Warfare model of anti-Mormonism posit that JS received real supernatural visitors and supernatural inspiration for the BOM and his other revelations. However, his visions were of Satan or demons masquerading as an "angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:4), and his revelations are by demonically inspired. Mormonism is thus a "Satanic Cult" in the minds of these anti-Mormons. In this form of anti-Mormonism--which includes such luminaries as Ed Decker and Bill Schnoebelen--the struggle against Mormonism is not merely an effort to help misguided and misinformed people find the truth about Mormonism and become Evangelicals, but at its core a battle against demons and Satan himself.

I gave Rob a number of chances to respond to my questions in this regard. If he did not accept some variation of this form of anti-Mormonism he could have easily simply said so. No lengthy explanation would have been necessary. The fact that he refuses to answer my questions implies to me that he does belief something along these lines, but doesn't want Mormons to know about it because it will undercut his credibility. I hope I'm wrong, and, if so, Rob can correct my misapprehensions.

[diglot]

To me, Calvinism is salvation by lottery, but you don't even get to buy a ticket.

You either win or lose, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Bernard

That is a very nice and succinct summary of Calvinism.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Your accusation of "evasion" is rude, given the specific explanations I have given for not getting around to responding to every post of every person who has challenged me here.

I don't have time (or eyesight, just to make matters worse) to go into all of the issues here in the way I would like, but I have been critical of the Hunt/Schoebelen type of approach to Mormonism for 25 years.

I will respond later in greater detail; you can count on it. However, I consider your comments offensive and hope you will retract them.

Based on his evasions, it seems pretty clear to me that Rob Bowman does, in fact, subscribe to some variation of the "Spiritual Warfare" form of anti-Mormonism. Based on the Evangelical interpretation of Eph. 6:12, the various forms the Spiritual Warfare model of anti-Mormonism posit that JS received real supernatural visitors and supernatural inspiration for the BOM and his other revelations. However, his visions were of Satan or demons masquerading as an "angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:4), and his revelations are by demonically inspired. Mormonism is thus a "Satanic Cult" in the minds of these anti-Mormons. In this form of anti-Mormonism--which includes such luminaries as Ed Decker and Bill Schnoebelen--the struggle against Mormonism is not merely an effort to help misguided and misinformed people find the truth about Mormonism and become Evangelicals, but at its core a battle against demons and Satan himself.

I gave Rob a number of chances to respond to my questions in this regard. If he did not accept some variation of this form of anti-Mormonism he could have easily simply said so. No lengthy explanation would have been necessary. The fact that he refuses to answer my questions implies to me that he does belief something along these lines, but doesn't want Mormons to know about it because it will undercut his credibility. I hope I'm wrong, and, if so, Rob can correct my misapprehensions.

[Vance]

Based on his evasions, it seems pretty clear to me that Rob Bowman does, in fact, subscribe to some variation of the "Spiritual Warfare" form of anti-Mormonism. Based on the Evangelical interpretation of Eph. 6:12, the various forms the Spiritual Warfare model of anti-Mormonism posit that JS received real supernatural visitors and supernatural inspiration for the BOM and his other revelations. However, his visions were of Satan or demons masquerading as an "angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:4), and his revelations are by demonically inspired. Mormonism is thus a "Satanic Cult" in the minds of these anti-Mormons. In this form of anti-Mormonism--which includes such luminaries as Ed Decker and Bill Schnoebelen--the struggle against Mormonism is not merely an effort to help misguided and misinformed people find the truth about Mormonism and become Evangelicals, but at its core a battle against demons and Satan himself.

I gave Rob a number of chances to respond to my questions in this regard. If he did not accept some variation of this form of anti-Mormonism he could have easily simply said so. No lengthy explanation would have been necessary. The fact that he refuses to answer my questions implies to me that he does belief something along these lines, but doesn't want Mormons to know about it because it will undercut his credibility. I hope I'm wrong, and, if so, Rob can correct my misapprehensions.

Some time ago, I asked Bowman a similar question to which he refused to give a specific answer.

He says above that he has "been critical of the Hunt/Schoebelen type of approach to Mormonism for 25 years."

It makes me wonder if the part that he is "critical of" is that part about admitting honestly and openly that you do think it of demonic origins. That it is best to keep that part under wraps BECAUSE it is off putting.

Better to be evasive and mute about what he REALLY thinks.

Apparently, sore eyes prevents the writing of a couple of sentences of explanation but doesn't prevent the writing of a couple of sentences of excuses and evasion.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Some time back you had written:

My impression is that you are one of those Evangelicals who believe in the "spiritual warfare" model of relations with the LDS. That is to say, you believe that JS was a false prophet inspired by the Devil, and probably demon-possessed. You believe that (at least some of) Joseph's visions were real, but that it was Satan as an "angel of light" who manifest himself to JS, not God or Christ. Have I understood you correctly?

And more recently you wrote:

Based on his evasions, it seems pretty clear to me that Rob Bowman does, in fact, subscribe to some variation of the "Spiritual Warfare" form of anti-Mormonism. Based on the Evangelical interpretation of Eph. 6:12, the various forms the Spiritual Warfare model of anti-Mormonism posit that JS received real supernatural visitors and supernatural inspiration for the BOM and his other revelations. However, his visions were of Satan or demons masquerading as an "angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:4), and his revelations are by demonically inspired. Mormonism is thus a "Satanic Cult" in the minds of these anti-Mormons. In this form of anti-Mormonism--which includes such luminaries as Ed Decker and Bill Schnoebelen--the struggle against Mormonism is not merely an effort to help misguided and misinformed people find the truth about Mormonism and become Evangelicals, but at its core a battle against demons and Satan himself.

I gave Rob a number of chances to respond to my questions in this regard. If he did not accept some variation of this form of anti-Mormonism he could have easily simply said so. No lengthy explanation would have been necessary. The fact that he refuses to answer my questions implies to me that he does belief something along these lines, but doesn't want Mormons to know about it because it will undercut his credibility. I hope I'm wrong, and, if so, Rob can correct my misapprehensions.

For the record, in my opinion it is highly unlikely that Joseph Smith was demon-possessed or that he had genuine supernatural encounters with real spiritual entities that claimed to be God and Jesus, Moroni, John the Baptist, et. al., but were really demons. I do not accept this interpretation of Joseph's stories and consider it to be very unlikely. I think it is far more likely that Joseph Smith lied about these visitations. I believe there is very good evidence to show that Joseph lied about his "first vision" as well as the supposed visitations to bestow the priesthood on him. On balance I think the fraud interpretation also makes the best sense historically of the alleged visitations of Moroni.

If Joseph did have genuine encounters with supernatural beings, theologically I would understand them to have been demonic deceptions. However, I don't think the alleged visitations ever occurred.

Even if I thought Joseph had been deceived by demons, I would not espouse a "spiritual warfare" model of approaching Mormons. This isn't because I doubt the reality of demons or deny that demonic deception is involved in the LDS religion. Demonic temptation and deception is worldwide and cuts across religious, cultural, and geographical boundaries, but it is usually far more subtle than the "spiritual warfare" model recognizes. That model essentially says that one cannot reason with people who are in the false religion because they are helpless victims of demonic control who need to be "delivered" from the demons before they can be reached with the true gospel. The apostles in the NT clearly did not subscribe to this model; they preached Christ and reasoned with followers of false religions in the expectation that God would use their words in conjunction with the convicting and convincing work of the Holy Spirit to bring people to faith. Again, there is a spiritual dimension to all false doctrine, but in my view this does not mean approaching members of heretical religions as "Satanic cultists" who need to be delivered from demonic control by some sort of spiritual warriors' intervention.

If one truly understands the spiritual warfare model, then, one should have no trouble understanding that someone who espoused it as their view of Mormonism would not work as hard as I do trying to reason with Mormons. Advocates of the spiritual warfare model, in fact, would be highly critical of my efforts.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I believe you owe me an apology.

Some time ago, I asked Bowman a similar question to which he refused to give a specific answer.

He says above that he has "been critical of the Hunt/Schoebelen type of approach to Mormonism for 25 years."

It makes me wonder if the part that he is "critical of" is that part about admitting honestly and openly that you do think it of demonic origins. That it is best to keep that part under wraps BECAUSE it is off putting.

Better to be evasive and mute about what he REALLY thinks.

Apparently, sore eyes prevents the writing of a couple of sentences of explanation but doesn't prevent the writing of a couple of sentences of excuses and evasion.

[Bill Hamblin]

Thanks for the clarification. I'm glad to learn I was mistaken.

[Programmer]

The Bible is in fact the perfect tool to start any church you want, to follow any creed you want. The Bible is not common ground for Christian's it is a battleground.

Sorry but if the Bible was 10 times bigger than it might be effective in settling disputes among Christians.

[Bill Hamblin]

The Bible is in fact the perfect tool to start any church you want, to follow any creed you want. The Bible is not common ground for Christian's it is a battleground.

Sorry but if the Bible was 10 times bigger than it might be effective in settling disputes among Christians.

If it were 10 times bigger, there would be ten times as much to argue about.

[Programmer]

If it were 10 times bigger, there would be ten times as much to argue about.

I guess it depends on what is in that extra amount. And if that extra amount is just duplicating topics over and over again.

[Vance]

Vance,

I believe you owe me an apology.

For what?

For taking your evasion as an indication that you didn't really disagree Hunt/Schoebelen?

I am glad that you have finally come clean and that your position isn't quite as ridiculous as theirs.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Unbelievable. I have made it clear that there was no "evasion" and that your judgment was false. My response was not "finally coming clean" but simply informing you as to the position I have taken for a quarter of a century--which should have been obvious to you already. You should apologize for claiming that I was evading Bill's question and for insinuating that my explanations for the delay were lies or mere excuses.

For what?

For taking your evasion as an indication that you didn't really disagree Hunt/Schoebelen?

I am glad that you have finally come clean and that your position isn't quite as ridiculous as theirs.

[Vance]

My impression is that you are one of those Evangelicals who believe in the "spiritual warfare" model of relations with the LDS. That is to say, you believe that JS was a false prophet inspired by the Devil, and probably demon-possessed. You believe that (at least some of) Joseph's visions were real, but that it was Satan as an "angel of light" who manifest himself to JS, not God or Christ. Have I understood you correctly?

A simple yes or no question.

I'm spending about as much time here as I can justify as it is. I simply don't have time to get to every post.

I'll see what I can do.

How many days must pass before it looks like evasion of a simple yes or no question? (Especially considering that during that time you started a new thread and posted there extensively.)

Edited to add,

Notice that the question was asked on the morning of the 21st,and the answer was finally given,

Edited September 26, 2011 by Vance

[Vance]

dup

Edited September 26, 2011 by Vance

[Vance]

Triple

Edited September 26, 2011 by Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

A simple yes or no question.

That's how it was presented, and I answered No, but I felt some context and clarification was necessary. I stated my intention to answer, and I did. My answer showed that your accusations were false. Why can't you just man up and admit it?

You wrote:

How many days must pass before it looks like evasion of a simple yes or no question? (Especially considering that during that time you started a new thread and posted there extensively.)

Edited to add,

Notice that the question was asked on the morning of the 21st,and the answer was finally given,

And how many days has it been since I first asked you the simple yes or no question you have yet to answer? Answer: ten days--more than twice as long as it took me to respond to Bill's question.

Vance,

You were banned from this thread, remember? However, I will be happy to see you give a direct answer to this question: Did Joseph Fielding McConkie misrepresent or distort the teachings of the LDS Church when he wrote, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the Holy Ghost is a spirit man, a spirit son of God the Father" (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 2:649)?

Yes or No, please.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

That's how it was presented, and I answered No, . . . .

Yup, SEVERAL DAYS LATER.

My answer showed that your accusations were false. Why can't you just man up and admit it?

I accused you of evading the question, which is what you did for several days as I have shown.

And how many days has it been since I first asked you the simple yes or no question you have yet to answer? Answer: ten days--more than twice as long as it took me to respond to Bill's question.

And how many days passed between your query and my I responding to it by telling you the answer to your question was IRRELEVANT to our discussion?

Answer: LESS THAN ONE!

Edited to add the response,

The answer to that question is irrelevant to what "the Mormon Church (actually) teaches", and you know it. This is just a diversion attempt.

Perhaps you failed to read the "Preface" of Encyclopedia of Mormonism, you know, the part that says,

NOW, back to the topic of the thread.

Your argument has been shredded.

Do you have a response to that fact?

WOW!!!! 7:03 AM all the way until 7:39 AM. That is a whopping 36 MINUTES!!

Edited September 26, 2011 by Vance