Evangelical’S Highest Authority Says Mormons Are Christians

[Vance]

This is an expression of honesty, based on diligent - and faithful - research. As comforting as it may be for some to be rock-solid convinced on such topics, as nice as it may be for some people to have no really important or deep questions in mind when they ritually perform their daily scripture reading already confident in their arsenal of ready-made answer and pigeon-hole for everything being read, I find something powerful and strangely comforting about unanswered questions and contradiction in scripture. Knowing that even those who it seems are closest to God still were working things out, and learning, and grasping. I love this. I am encouraged by this.

WOW!!!

You probably even allow that there may be many very good, honest and deeply spiritual people that will very much disagree with you on some gospel topics.

How very undogmatic of you.

[David T]

WOW!!!

You probably even allow that there may be many very good, honest and deeply spiritual people that will very much disagree with you on some gospel topics.

How very undogmatic of you.

The importance to me is not what one believes about Genesis, but in how one strives to emulate Christ, and show His love. I have had my life blessed in powerful ways by individuals whose understanding of theology and scriptural history I would and do strongly disagree with, but I would never, for a second, think of questioning their devotion to Christ - for I saw Him in their actions, behavior, and love.

[Calm]

It is a very low way to avoid answering Mak's points.

Perhaps judging who is and isn't Christian has gotten old enough that he's now adding judging who is and isn't LDS to his repertoire for some more kicks and giggles.

[diglot]

The importance to me is not what one believes about Genesis, but in how one strives to emulate Christ, and show His love. I have had my life blessed in powerful ways by individuals whose understanding of theology and scriptural history I would and do strongly disagree with, but I would never, for a second, think of questioning their devotion to Christ - for I saw Him in their actions, behavior, and love.

Here, here!

[volgadon]

haha, I find it hard to believe she has published academically on anything.

You'll enjoy this.

walkstar. blogspot.com/2009/12/capitalization-anonymousness-authority .html

Edited October 27, 2011 by volgadon

[maklelan]

Dan,

If you don’t have any idea what it means to affirm that the Bible (or any other scripture) is the word of God, and you aren’t even sure that Abraham, Moses, or Nephi existed, it seems that your affiliation with the LDS Church is more formal and institutional than substantive.

I have a testimony that Jesus Christ lives and is my personal savior, that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that God directs his church. What about my statement that I have no direct knowledge of how to parse out the minutiae of these confessions means my affiliation with the church is somehow less substantive? Even the First Presidency in official declarations have said that although broad concepts are declared by revelation, the details remain in obscurity (e.g., the exact process by which God created humanity). Secondarily, what does the kind of my affiliation with the LDS church have to do with the question of what evidence proves Scripture to be true? It seems you're trying to divert attention so you don't have to be on the defensive anymore.

If Abraham, Moses, or Nephi did not exist, then the “ancient” LDS scriptures (Book of Abraham, Book of Moses, and the Book of Mormon) are a massive hoax or fraud from beginning to end. (They might still be a massive hoax or fraud even if, as I believe, Abraham and Moses were real people, but they certainly must be a hoax or fraud if those men did not exist.) Thus, there really should not be any room for agnosticism in a Mormon context about the reality of those ancient figures.

I disagree. I don't believe any scriptural text is required to be understood by my faith to be a verbatim and inerrant historical record. I believe that that the scriptures convey true principles based on the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and I do not preclude the existence of most scriptural figures

There’s really no point in giving lip service to Scripture being the “word of God” if this doesn’t have any positive meaning for you.

It does have a positive meaning for me. I connect with God and his will for me through prayerful study of the scriptures. I believe my devotional reading is attended by the Spirit and that I am guided in my life decisions insomuch as I live by the principles that are opened up to me through my study. I believe it is the Spirit that teaches me, not historical narratives. To say that my approach doesn't have a positive meaning because I am not convinced that all the narratives are historically inerrant puts the standard of faith on the most brittle of foundations, and I refuse to weaken my faith to such a drastic degree.

I’m very sorry for you, Dan, because from my perspective your affiliation with the LDS religion is far less troubling than your skepticism and doubts about many basic beliefs that evangelicals and most Mormons have in common.

Suddenly we're all concerned about my affiliation with the church rather than with the weakness of the evidences you cited as proof of the inerrancy of scripture (note: you explicitly said they proved scripture true). Your rhetorical jujitsu needs to be more subtle, Rob.

A number of your fellow LDS here applaud you when you attack biblical inerrancy, but I wonder if they understand that your method casts dark shadows of doubt over their own most cherished beliefs.

As I understand it, they only throw dark shadows over your etic perception of what our most cherished beliefs are. Of course, there are a lot of Latter-day Saints who will disagree with me, but there are also a lot that will agree with me. The notion that my position on this issue divides sincere Latter-day Saints from mere institutional Latter-day Saints sounds an awful lot like the kind of sectarianism that leads people to insist certain groups aren't Christian just because someone doesn't like them.

They may feel that your attacks on the reliability of the Bible are polemically useful against evangelical “anti-Mormons” and open the door for the LDS brand of fideism in which one “knows” by spiritual experience alone that the Book of Mormon is true, that Joseph Smith was God’s prophet, and that the LDS Church is the one true church. In reality, though, you aren’t even sure that the events reported in Book of Mormon actually occurred or that its prophets were real people. In my opinion, a critical method that turns the Bible into Swiss cheese will blow the Book of Mormon to dust.

I'm fine with admitting neither text is empirically supportable. It's actually what I've been insisting all along. I know that my beliefs are based on faith and not empirical evidence. I'm trying to get Evangelicals to acknowledge the same, but most of them have a hard time taking their medicine. The most common knee-jerk reaction is exactly what you're doing, a tu quoque fallacy that tries to deflect the criticisms from your worldview by insisting that they apply equally to my worldview. I know they apply equally to my worldview. It's what I've been trying to show the whole time. Both our worldviews are based on faith, not evidence. You're the one insisting there has to be evidence.

You’re very clear and even imperiously dogmatic about what you don’t believe (especially that the Bible is historically accurate, let alone inerrant), but when asked about your own positive beliefs on very basic theological issues you are noncommittal and unsure (so that all of your answers were, in your own words, “That depends” or “I don’t know”).

You're equivocating. You asked me what I believed, but I asked you to support what you explicitly said you could prove. I don't believe any evidence on earth can prove any of the things you asserted about the Bible. That's not to say those things are all precluded by the evidence, or that I reject them. What I reject is the notion that there is evidence that proves them (or even supports them in many instances). You didn't ask me what I could prove, though, you asked me what I believed. I didn't ask you what you believed, I asked you about what you could prove.

[maklelan]

I’m very glad you still believe in Christ’s death and resurrection, but if you ever apply the same method to those facts that you do to the rest of the Bible the result is also likely to be negative.

I believe God has communicated the actuality of certain things to me. That Moses wrote the entirety of the Pentateuch is not one of those things. Where I believe God has shown me something to be true, I believe it. Where he has not, I can only base my beliefs on the evidence. I don't find anything sinister about this approach.

I have been engaging liberal and skeptical biblical scholarship for 37 years, and I have spent a lot more time dealing with issues in that area than I have dealing with LDS issues. I’m very comfortable dealing with the sorts of issues that you raise, although my specialization in biblical studies is New Testament (whereas yours is Old Testament). I am also very used to the condescending attitudes of non-evangelicals toward my conservative view of Scripture.

You should try dealing with the condescending attitude of inerrantists toward people who reject inerrancy. Here's how Gleason Archer responded to a request from a fundamentalist-turned-atheist to debate him on biblical inerrancy:

Dear Mr. Till:

Thank you for your invitation to debate me concerning the accuracy and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture. If I thought it would serve any useful purpose, I would be happy to comply. But from what I know about you I can only conclude that it would be a mere exercise in futility.

Let me explain that if you presented yourself as a seeker after truth, or if you were a Muslim debater, or the exponent of some religion which has a genuine belief in a god of some sort, and you had not been presented with the strong and compelling evidence for the unique authority and inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures, then there might be some point in our getting together.

But as it is, in view of the fact that you have already been confronted with the many infallible proofs of the truth of Scripture, and were once sufficiently persuaded of them to become what you term "a Fundamentalist minister," I can only conclude that you have fallen into the syndrome of a passionate, quarrelsome renegade, and are therefore not really open to reason. You now consider yourself superior to Moses and Isaiah and Jesus Christ Himself as an expert on God, and you therefore have super seded them as a supreme authority in all things metaphysical. You have absolutely nothing to offer to your public but disillusionment and despair as they face the prospect of eventual death and possible judgment before the Author and Enforcer of the moral law. You can only leave them without purpose, goal or meaning in life, and persuade them that life is basically futile and without purpose.

In short, I feel it would be as pointless for me to debate with you as it would be for either of us to debate with Mary Baker Eddy about the reality of matter or the value of material medica. I must add that I feel sorry for you that you have lost all hope of salvation because of your abandonment of your Savior. But the same God who granted me the responsibility of free choice between Christ and Satan has granted the same to you, and I therefore respect your prerogative to turn your back upon God if that is what you prefer.

Gleason L. Archer

I couldn't imagine responding to a request for a debate in such a condescending manner, but I've directly been on the receiving end of such condescension. As an example, here are some things the formerly pseudonymous J. P. Holding said to me after I responded to a thread inviting me to expound on JEDP:

Dear Stupid . . .Steeewwww-pid. Where'd you get your degree from? Gumball U.? . . . Blaming me for your own assumptive . . . Suck on that, MacNutsy. . . . YAWN....I know all this. Doesn't mean he's bulletproof, dumb***. . . . Many of them are as stewwww-pid about ancient sociology as you are. . . . Sorry, you're too dumb when it comes to the social science aspects to refute it. . . .Dumb answer, Stupid. . . .I didn't say they argue "against" Ong, dumb*** . . .Uh, being humble is a "deed" and expressed in "deeds," you moron. . . .I'll be specific when a specific argument arises, Dipstick. . . . No, stewpid . . .

You're no more going to get me to feel sorry for you than Rick Perry is going to get me to feel sorry for him because he's a victim of religious prejudice.

But I sincerely see your usual line of attack as a distraction from the discussion of issues dividing Mormons from evangelicals.

You stated that there were facts that proved Scripture true. I disagreed and asked you to support the statement. You still have not been able to do so. If you'd like to retract the statement then we can move on.

My purpose and intent here on this forum is to engage believing Latter-day Saints on theological and historical issues dividing them from evangelicals.

I consider biblical inerrancy to be one of those theological and historical issues.

That is why I decline to engage you in a protracted debate about biblical inerrancy—because your method and arguments you make superficially look like they’re merely about critiquing biblical inerrancy when in fact your method undermines the very credibility of the LDS faith just as much as it does the evangelical view of the Bible.

Yeah, and intentionally so. That doesn't mean you're exempt from engaging the debate. Either you can empirically defend inerrancy or you cannot. Insisting that my refusal to be nailed down to dogmatic restrictions somehow handicaps your argument really only tells me your argument is built upon those restrictions and not on actual evidence.

In addition, such a debate places us in the continual pattern of me supposedly needing to defend practically everything I believe (even things that most Mormons believe) and you taking a positive stand for nothing.

I take a positive stand for reading the Bible according to what can be shown about it rather than what can be asserted about it. is that not a legitimate position?

That is, your method is purely negative, finding fault everywhere you can and raising doubts everywhere else, but offering no alternative belief system or conclusions in support of some positive belief of your own.

This is untrue. The belief system I promote is the belief in what the evidence shows.

When I engage LDS here in discussion or debate, whatever negative conclusions I present about LDS doctrines or claims are made in the interests of defending a positive, robust, and well-defined evangelical Christian belief system. In fact a large fraction, perhaps a majority, of my posts here have focused on explicating or defending some aspect of evangelical belief (e.g., the Trinity, the Bible as the complete canon of Scripture, salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone, etc.).

Nothing I have said here is meant to imply that you aren’t free to post whatever you like or to employ whatever method you choose. I am simply trying to give my own perspective on our discussions to date and to explain why I am reluctant to spend a great deal of time here addressing your numerous objections to my view of the Bible. I also think it would be healthy for the other LDS here to take a more careful look at your method and conclusions, as I think they are devastating not just to my view of the Bible but even more so to their view of the Book of Mormon.

I think you're projecting your own view of scripture onto Latter-day Saint ideology, which isn't going to align with all of us.

[David T]

<lots of awesome stuff>

In all seriousness, I nominate post #481 as Post of the Year.

Edited October 27, 2011 by nackhadlow

[diglot]

You'll enjoy this.

walkstar. blogspot.com/2009/12/capitalization-anonymousness-authority .html

Ha! Classic.

My oh my, the tangled webs she weaves.

[Vance]

That is, your method is purely negative, finding fault everywhere you can and raising doubts everywhere else, but offering no alternative belief system or conclusions in support of some positive belief of your own.

OH!!!! the IRONY!!!

When I engage LDS here in discussion or debate, whatever negative conclusions I present about LDS doctrines or claims are made in the interests of defending a positive, robust, and well-defined evangelical Christian belief system.

Robust?

LOL!!!!

In fact a large fraction, perhaps a majority, of my posts here have focused on explicating or defending some aspect of evangelical belief (e.g., the Trinity, the Bible as the complete canon of Scripture, salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone, etc.).

I am not buying it. Unless you are meaning only in this particular thread.

I also think it would be healthy for the other LDS here to take a more careful look at your method and conclusions, as I think they are devastating not just to my view of the Bible but even more so to their view of the Book of Mormon.

I see how his very scholarly method is davatating for your view of the Bible, but I don't see it affecting my view of the Book of Mormon (or the Bible). I accept them on faith and the witness of the Holy Spirit, not on any other basis.

Edited October 27, 2011 by Vance

[cdowis]

Ah cdowis, before we can answer this from the Bible we have to resolve the following conundrum first.

Is it the Bible that is trustworthy, or is it Rob Bowman's metaphorical interpretation that is trustworthy?

The issue of an inerrant Bible is moot until we have an inerrant interpretation of the Bible. (I think that is what you said)

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

First of all, I think I should have found a better way to express my opinion about how your beliefs relate to your status as a Latter-day Saint. I apologize if my comment on that matter offended you. I do maintain, though, that the statements you made are irreconcilable with the clear and consistent teaching of the LDS Church regarding the historicity (not inerrancy) of its scriptures, especially of the Book of Mormon. I do think your arguments undermine the very foundations of LDS teaching and not just the evangelical belief in biblical inerrancy.

You wrote:

I have a testimony that Jesus Christ lives and is my personal savior, that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that God directs his church. What about my statement that I have no direct knowledge of how to parse out the minutiae of these confessions means my affiliation with the church is somehow less substantive? Even the First Presidency in official declarations have said that although broad concepts are declared by revelation, the details remain in obscurity (e.g., the exact process by which God created humanity). Secondarily, what does the kind of my affiliation with the LDS church have to do with the question of what evidence proves Scripture to be true? It seems you're trying to divert attention so you don't have to be on the defensive anymore.

No, I'm afraid I cannot agree. I'm sorry to say that it seems to me that you're trying to divert attention away from your own lack of belief in things that most LDS accept as basic to their belief system. You say that you had stated that you "have no direct knowledge of how to parse out the minutiae of these confessions" such as that the Book of Mormon is "the word of God." That isn't what you said. Here's what happened. I had asked you, "Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God? If so, what does this mean to you?" You replied, "Yes, and I don't know yet. It's not explained anywhere, and I'm not going to allow dogmatism to overrule what I find the evidence to indicate." Notice, you didn't say that you didn't know what all the minutiae or detailed implications were of the Bible (or any other scripture) being the word of God are; you said flatly that you didn't know what it meant to say that the Bible is the word of God. Now if you would like to retract that statement and offer some positive account or description of what it means to you to affirm that the Bible or the Book of Mormon is the word of God, fine. I didn't ask for the minutiae; I asked you what it means in your thinking to affirm that the Bible is the word of God.

I had written:

"If Abraham, Moses, or Nephi did not exist, then the 'ancient' LDS scriptures (Book of Abraham, Book of Moses, and the Book of Mormon) are a massive hoax or fraud from beginning to end. (They might still be a massive hoax or fraud even if, as I believe, Abraham and Moses were real people, but they certainly must be a hoax or fraud if those men did not exist.) Thus, there really should not be any room for agnosticism in a Mormon context about the reality of those ancient figures."

You replied:

I disagree. I don't believe any scriptural text is required to be understood by my faith to be a verbatim and inerrant historical record. I believe that that the scriptures convey true principles based on the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and I do not preclude the existence of most scriptural figures.

I didn't ask you if you viewed the LDS scriptures as inerrant. I asked you if you believe that figures whom the LDS Church views as the authors of ancient scriptures Joseph Smith purported to translate were real historical persons. For example, a simple "Yes, Abraham was a real person" would not commit you to a view of the Book of Abraham as an inerrant text. However, if Abraham was not a real person, then the Book of Abraham is not at all what it purports to be or what Joseph Smith purported it to be. This isn't my opinion; this is the clear teaching of the LDS Church. Your attempt to change the subject from the historical authenticity of the LDS scriptures to that of verbal inerrancy won't work with me. That isn't the issue here.

Likewise, regarding the meaning of affirming that the Bible is the word of God, you wrote:

It does have a positive meaning for me. I connect with God and his will for me through prayerful study of the scriptures. I believe my devotional reading is attended by the Spirit and that I am guided in my life decisions insomuch as I live by the principles that are opened up to me through my study. I believe it is the Spirit that teaches me, not historical narratives. To say that my approach doesn't have a positive meaning because I am not convinced that all the narratives are historically inerrant puts the standard of faith on the most brittle of foundations, and I refuse to weaken my faith to such a drastic degree.

Again, I had simply asked what it meant to you, and you said quite flatly that you didn't know. Now you say that you do know something of what it means. Fine. But I didn't say that your belief doesn't have a positive meaning for you because you don't view the scriptural narratives as inerrant. I said that your belief doesn't have a positive meaning for you if you don't know what it means!

You wrote:

You're equivocating. You asked me what I believed, but I asked you to support what you explicitly said you could prove. I don't believe any evidence on earth can prove any of the things you asserted about the Bible. That's not to say those things are all precluded by the evidence, or that I reject them. What I reject is the notion that there is evidence that proves them (or even supports them in many instances). You didn't ask me what I could prove, though, you asked me what I believed. I didn't ask you what you believed, I asked you about what you could prove.

I don't see any equivocation in my asking you what you believe. Yes, you asked me what I could prove; yes, I asked you what you believe. I'm not confusing the two different questions.

I had written:

"That is, your method is purely negative, finding fault everywhere you can and raising doubts everywhere else, but offering no alternative belief system or conclusions in support of some positive belief of your own."

You replied:

This is untrue. The belief system I promote is the belief in what the evidence shows.

Dan, everything else you have said disagrees. You have stated repeatedly that there is no evidence to support your belief. For example, you had written:

I know that my beliefs are based on faith and not empirical evidence.... Both our worldviews are based on faith, not evidence. You're the one insisting there has to be evidence.

And this:

I believe we share a special relationship with God that all other animal life does not share, but that's a faith claim. I can't point to any evidence of that.

You even said:

No, there is simply no evidence anywhere in this universe that at all confirms the historicity of Jesus' death and resurrection.

If that's true, how can you also say that the belief system you promote is the one that the evidence shows?

Frankly, I'm shocked that not one LDS participant here has expressed any concerns over your statements questioning the existence of Abraham, Moses, and even the purported ancient prophets of the Book of Mormon. But perhaps I should not be. Perhaps the traditionalists here are willing to look the other way as long as your focus is on slaying the evangelical dragon.

[zerinus]

Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God? If so, what does this mean to you?

I believe that the Bible is the word of God; which means to me that it is scripture—i.e. it is “the will of the Lord, ... the mind of the Lord, ... the word of the Lord, ... the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation” (D&C 68:4). It also means that it is historically true, and doctrinally and theologically inerrant—meaning that “whoso would hearken unto the word of God, and would hold fast unto it, they would never perish; neither could the temptations and the fiery darts of the adversary overpower them unto blindness, to lead them away to destruction” (1 Nephi 15:24). In other words, it is an unfailing guide to eternal life.

Do you personally affirm or deny that the universe that we observe around us testifies to us that there is a God?

According to the Book of Mormon, yes: “all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator” (Alma 30:44).

Do you believe that human beings are qualitatively different from all other animal species on earth?

Man is unique in the animal kingdom in that he was created in the image of God; but that does not mean that animals do not have souls, spirits, intelligence, and many other attributes that we have. They can have them nearly to the same degree that we do, though we are more advanced than they.

In your opinion, are there absolute moral values that transcend changing cultures? If so, what would be an example of such a value? If not, what do you believe about moral values?

The answer is yes; and they are exemplified in the Decalogue and in the Sermon on the Mount. More examples can be found in all of scripture.

Do you affirm or deny that Israelites enslaved in Egypt escaped from there and settled in Palestine in the second millennium BC?

Yes; though the exact timing may be difficult to ascertain.

Do you believe that the following persons mentioned in the Bible were real historical persons: Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon?

Yes.

Do you believe that the Book of Mormon figures of Lehi, Nephi, and Laman were real historical persons?

Yes.

Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead as a literal, historical event?

Yes.

Edited October 27, 2011 by zerinus

[maklelan]

Dan,

First of all, I think I should have found a better way to express my opinion about how your beliefs relate to your status as a Latter-day Saint. I apologize if my comment on that matter offended you.

I appreciate that.

I do maintain, though, that the statements you made are irreconcilable with the clear and consistent teaching of the LDS Church regarding the historicity (not inerrancy) of its scriptures, especially of the Book of Mormon. I do think your arguments undermine the very foundations of LDS teaching and not just the evangelical belief in biblical inerrancy.

I didn't say I don't believe the Book of Mormon is historical, and if we're distinguishing between inerrant and historical then we must allow for a degree of historical inaccuracy in the latter. I can't say what events or characters fall into that gap. I believe there is actual history in the Book of Mormon, and particularly as it relates to Christ's mission, but I don't know the degree to which it is historically accurate and to which it is an anaphoric production of Joseph Smith's worldview. I believe both factors played a role in its final form, so I'm not going to commit to one position or another regarding the existence of this individual or that. I have not sought a testimony regarding the existence of Nephi or Alma, nor do I think it's critical to my faith. You feel otherwise, and that's fine.

You wrote:

No, I'm afraid I cannot agree. I'm sorry to say that it seems to me that you're trying to divert attention away from your own lack of belief in things that most LDS accept as basic to their belief system.

This is a mischaracterization. I don't believe my lack of what you perceive to be Mormon orthodoxy is the topic of this thread. The topic is the relationship of Mormonism to Christianity, and more particularly, your claim that there are evidences that prove the scriptures are true. Given that fact, I wouldn't characterize what I'm doing so much as trying to divert attention, but rather as trying to keep the discussion on-topic and focused on an argument that I know (and I suspect you know) you cannot sustain, namely that there exist empirical evidences that prove the scriptures are inerrant (and if "inerrant" is not what you meant when you said "true" then feel free to elaborate on the meaning of "Scripture is true").

You say that you had stated that you "have no direct knowledge of how to parse out the minutiae of these confessions" such as that the Book of Mormon is "the word of God." That isn't what you said. Here's what happened. I had asked you, "Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God? If so, what does this mean to you?" You replied, "Yes, and I don't know yet. It's not explained anywhere, and I'm not going to allow dogmatism to overrule what I find the evidence to indicate." Notice, you didn't say that you didn't know what all the minutiae or detailed implications were of the Bible (or any other scripture) being the word of God are; you said flatly that you didn't know what it meant to say that the Bible is the word of God.

I understood your question to reference the implications of the notion of the scriptures as the "word of God" vis-à-vis inerrancy and historicity. My response was directed at that. I believe my response to your claim that "word of God" has no positive meaning for me adequately clears up my misunderstanding.

Now if you would like to retract that statement and offer some positive account or description of what it means to you to affirm that the Bible or the Book of Mormon is the word of God, fine. I didn't ask for the minutiae; I asked you what it means in your thinking to affirm that the Bible is the word of God.

I had written:

"If Abraham, Moses, or Nephi did not exist, then the 'ancient' LDS scriptures (Book of Abraham, Book of Moses, and the Book of Mormon) are a massive hoax or fraud from beginning to end. (They might still be a massive hoax or fraud even if, as I believe, Abraham and Moses were real people, but they certainly must be a hoax or fraud if those men did not exist.) Thus, there really should not be any room for agnosticism in a Mormon context about the reality of those ancient figures."

You replied:

I didn't ask you if you viewed the LDS scriptures as inerrant. I asked you if you believe that figures whom the LDS Church views as the authors of ancient scriptures Joseph Smith purported to translate were real historical persons.

I said "verbatim and inerrant historical record," and if I don't understand it as such then I can hardly declare that this or that figure in the record definitely don't fall into whatever gaps might exist in an errant historical record. I can't determine from the evidence which texts are accurate and which are not, and, again, I've received no spiritual confirmation of these specific issues.

For example, a simple "Yes, Abraham was a real person" would not commit you to a view of the Book of Abraham as an inerrant text. However, if Abraham was not a real person, then the Book of Abraham is not at all what it purports to be or what Joseph Smith purported it to be. This isn't my opinion; this is the clear teaching of the LDS Church. Your attempt to change the subject from the historical authenticity of the LDS scriptures to that of verbal inerrancy won't work with me. That isn't the issue here.

I don't see much of a difference between unilateral historical authenticity and verbal inerrancy, at least from a Latter-day Saint perspective. I'm not saying that believing in Abraham necessitates a view of the text as inerrant, but without such a view, I don't feel like the evidence compels me one way or the other, and my own personal testimony that the Book of Abraham is the word of God is not contingent upon his actual historical authorship of the text or his existence.

Likewise, regarding the meaning of affirming that the Bible is the word of God, you wrote:

Again, I had simply asked what it meant to you, and you said quite flatly that you didn't know. Now you say that you do know something of what it means. Fine. But I didn't say that your belief doesn't have a positive meaning for you because you don't view the scriptural narratives as inerrant. I said that your belief doesn't have a positive meaning for you if you don't know what it means!

I apologize for the misunderstanding on my part. Hopefully my earlier comments clarified it.

You wrote:

I don't see any equivocation in my asking you what you believe. Yes, you asked me what I could prove; yes, I asked you what you believe. I'm not confusing the two different questions.

You certainly appear to be to me. You contrasted my absolutism regarding what the evidence could not support against my noncommittal response regarding what I believe to be true as if there was some kind of conflict between the two. I can be absolutely positive about what the evidence does not show while being noncommittal about what conclusions it firmly leads to.

I had written:

"That is, your method is purely negative, finding fault everywhere you can and raising doubts everywhere else, but offering no alternative belief system or conclusions in support of some positive belief of your own."

You replied:

Dan, everything else you have said disagrees.

No, you're just confusing the belief system I promote with the religious belief system I espouse. I don't promote Mormonism as grounded in empirical evidence. When I referred to a belief system based on evidence I was referring to an academic approach to reading the Bible, not to my religious convictions. The evidence supports the former. Faith supports the latter. I thought this would have been made clear by the comments I made immediately prior (the ones you did not bother addressing in this post):

I take a positive stand for reading the Bible according to what can be shown about it rather than what can be asserted about it. is that not a legitimate position?

You have stated repeatedly that there is no evidence to support your belief.

And I continue to assert that my faith is not based on empirical evidence (although I wouldn't say there is no evidence whatsoever, just not evidence that would compel one to accept it).

For example, you had written:

And this:

You even said:

If that's true, how can you also say that the belief system you promote is the one that the evidence shows?

I'm referring to an academic and objective approach to understanding the biblical texts. That's the positive method I promote. I don't offer my faith as the answer to criticisms of your view of scripture, I offer sound academic methodologies. You seem to think that constitutes fault-finding and negativism. I don't.

Frankly, I'm shocked that not one LDS participant here has expressed any concerns over your statements questioning the existence of Abraham, Moses, and even the purported ancient prophets of the Book of Mormon. But perhaps I should not be. Perhaps the traditionalists here are willing to look the other way as long as your focus is on slaying the evangelical dragon.

First, I didn't say I rejected them, I just said that the evidence has not confirmed them in my estimation. I don't just accept this or that tradition because it's how the church has always done it. When I first joined the church and first attended an institute course I saw a big blue sign in the front of the room that said "Find Out For Yourself." When I received my mission call to serve for two years in Montevideo, Uruguay, I was instructed in President Hinckley's letter to seek spiritual confirmation that the call was inspired of God, and only to accept the call upon reception of that confirmation. I did just that, and I've had numerous subsequent confirmations of that inspired call. I've tried to make sure that I seek out my own spiritual confirmation for those things I find critical to my faith. Where I either find no spiritual confirmation or don't seek it, I let the evidence guide me as far as it can. I won't be having anyone's dogmatism determine what I believe. I think that's a brittle foundation and I've seen it cripple the faith of too many people. For this reason, I will never be left without an explanation when someone asks me why I believe something. I will either be able to say that God has revealed it to me as the result of a specific and direct inquiry, or that I have researched for myself and have been convinced by the evidence.

As a study in contrasts, I have yet to have any Evangelical be able to give me a reasonable explanation for why they believe the Bible to be inerrant. I have had weak collections of "evidences" thrown against the wall in the hopes that something will stick (nothing ever will), and I have been told that it just is and I better accept it. What I've yet to see is someone explain that it's something they've accepted on faith, which is all it is and could ever be. I'm willing to make that admission regarding beliefs for which I have no evidence. I'm looking for an Evangelical who believes the Bible is inerrant and is self-aware enough and has the integrity to do the same.

I can commit no more time to this discussion if you insist that what is really critical to the progression of this thread on Mormonism as Christian is my lack of orthodoxy and the failure of other Mormons here to call me out for it. No one here buys that, and no amount of histrionics is going to change that.

[zerinus]

Dan,

If you don’t have any idea what it means to affirm that the Bible (or any other scripture) is the word of God, and you aren’t even sure that Abraham, Moses, or Nephi existed, it seems that your affiliation with the LDS Church is more formal and institutional than substantive. If Abraham, Moses, or Nephi did not exist, then the “ancient” LDS scriptures (Book of Abraham, Book of Moses, and the Book of Mormon) are a massive hoax or fraud from beginning to end. (They might still be a massive hoax or fraud even if, as I believe, Abraham and Moses were real people, but they certainly must be a hoax or fraud if those men did not exist.) Thus, there really should not be any room for agnosticism in a Mormon context about the reality of those ancient figures.

There’s really no point in giving lip service to Scripture being the “word of God” if this doesn’t have any positive meaning for you. I’m very sorry for you, Dan, because from my perspective your affiliation with the LDS religion is far less troubling than your skepticism and doubts about many basic beliefs that evangelicals and most Mormons have in common. A number of your fellow LDS here applaud you when you attack biblical inerrancy, but I wonder if they understand that your method casts dark shadows of doubt over their own most cherished beliefs. They may feel that your attacks on the reliability of the Bible are polemically useful against evangelical “anti-Mormons” and open the door for the LDS brand of fideism in which one “knows” by spiritual experience alone that the Book of Mormon is true, that Joseph Smith was God’s prophet, and that the LDS Church is the one true church. In reality, though, you aren’t even sure that the events reported in Book of Mormon actually occurred or that its prophets were real people. In my opinion, a critical method that turns the Bible into Swiss cheese will blow the Book of Mormon to dust. You’re very clear and even imperiously dogmatic about what you don’t believe (especially that the Bible is historically accurate, let alone inerrant), but when asked about your own positive beliefs on very basic theological issues you are noncommittal and unsure (so that all of your answers were, in your own words, “That depends” or “I don’t know”). I’m very glad you still believe in Christ’s death and resurrection, but if you ever apply the same method to those facts that you do to the rest of the Bible the result is also likely to be negative.

I have been engaging liberal and skeptical biblical scholarship for 37 years, and I have spent a lot more time dealing with issues in that area than I have dealing with LDS issues. I’m very comfortable dealing with the sorts of issues that you raise, although my specialization in biblical studies is New Testament (whereas yours is Old Testament). I am also very used to the condescending attitudes of non-evangelicals toward my conservative view of Scripture. But I sincerely see your usual line of attack as a distraction from the discussion of issues dividing Mormons from evangelicals. My purpose and intent here on this forum is to engage believing Latter-day Saints on theological and historical issues dividing them from evangelicals. That is why I decline to engage you in a protracted debate about biblical inerrancy—because your method and arguments you make superficially look like they’re merely about critiquing biblical inerrancy when in fact your method undermines the very credibility of the LDS faith just as much as it does the evangelical view of the Bible. In addition, such a debate places us in the continual pattern of me supposedly needing to defend practically everything I believe (even things that most Mormons believe) and you taking a positive stand for nothing. That is, your method is purely negative, finding fault everywhere you can and raising doubts everywhere else, but offering no alternative belief system or conclusions in support of some positive belief of your own. When I engage LDS here in discussion or debate, whatever negative conclusions I present about LDS doctrines or claims are made in the interests of defending a positive, robust, and well-defined evangelical Christian belief system. In fact a large fraction, perhaps a majority, of my posts here have focused on explicating or defending some aspect of evangelical belief (e.g., the Trinity, the Bible as the complete canon of Scripture, salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone, etc.).

Nothing I have said here is meant to imply that you aren’t free to post whatever you like or to employ whatever method you choose. I am simply trying to give my own perspective on our discussions to date and to explain why I am reluctant to spend a great deal of time here addressing your numerous objections to my view of the Bible. I also think it would be healthy for the other LDS here to take a more careful look at your method and conclusions, as I think they are devastating not just to my view of the Bible but even more so to their view of the Book of Mormon.

Regrettably, I am going to have to agree with Rob Bowman on this one.

Edited October 27, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

It is so not your place to even suggest this.

I don't see why not. We get close enough to each others respective views to be able to make those kinds of assessments.

[zerinus]

Perhaps judging who is and isn't Christian has gotten old enough that he's now adding judging who is and isn't LDS to his repertoire for some more kicks and giggles.

I don't think that those two are on the same level. Whereas the former is evidently unjustified, and is done with obvios malicious intent; the latter can be a legitimate assessment based on one's observation of someone's stated convictions.

[Calm]

Frankly, I'm shocked that not one LDS participant here has expressed any concerns over your statements questioning the existence of Abraham, Moses, and even the purported ancient prophets of the Book of Mormon. But perhaps I should not be. Perhaps the traditionalists here are willing to look the other way as long as your focus is on slaying the evangelical dragon.

You telling us what we believe is presumptuous. You telling us how to act on those beliefs is ridiculous.

You attempting to sow discord between brethren where none exists or should is reprehensible.

Edited October 27, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I don't think that those two are on the same level. Whereas the former is evidently unjustified, and is done with obvios malicious intent; the latter can be a legitimate assessment based on one's observation of someone's stated convictions.

It might be legitimate if it was an accurate portrayal of someone's faith though I have my doubts about someone being capable of doing it who has not demonstrated a firm grip on not only the LDS beliefs, but the expressions of those beliefs among LDS.

I don't see much evidence of the required capability here.

And one should never judge another's position in their spiritual faith until they have actually observed the exercise of that faith....and I don't mean a familiarity with someone's academic output.

Edited October 27, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I don't see why not. We get close enough to each others respective views to be able to make those kinds of assessments.

I am well aware that there are those arrogant enough to think they have been given some sort of unofficial calling to judge their brethren's place within the fold. I prefer to leave that up to those authorized by the Lord myself

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

It looks like we've cleared up a few things, and I'm glad. You wrote:

I have not sought a testimony regarding the existence of Nephi or Alma, nor do I think it's critical to my faith. You feel otherwise, and that's fine.

Yes, I think it makes no sense whatsoever to accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God in the context of LDS religion and not accept (even if as a matter of sheer faith) the existence of Nephi, or of Mormon or Moroni (arguably Alma's existence is more on the periphery). Nor is this an anti-Mormon assumption, but simply my observation of the view of the Book of Mormon that has been the norm in LDS teaching from the very beginning right up to today. But you think otherwise, and that's your business. Likewise, when you say,

my own personal testimony that the Book of Abraham is the word of God is not contingent upon his actual historical authorship of the text or his existence

such a statement simply does not fit the standard, normative stance of the LDS Church in its teaching about the Book of Abraham. This doesn't mean those like you with "liberal" views of LDS scripture aren't sincere or cannot find a place in LDS religious life. But the fact remains that in this regard your views of the LDS scriptures are not in accord with the official and authoritative teaching of your religion. How that works for you is your business and that of those to whom you are accountable.

You wrote:

And I continue to assert that my faith is not based on empirical evidence (although I wouldn't say there is no evidence whatsoever, just not evidence that would compel one to accept it).

Evidence is never "compelling" in that sense, because people can be highly irrational and refuse to believe something even if the evidence for it is overwhelming. Your qualification is pertinent to your own insistence that I am unable to "prove" that the Bible is inerrant. In my view, there is sufficient evidence to show that belief in biblical inerrancy is reasonable, and specific lines of evidence confirm (provide adequate evidential support for) that belief, but the evidence cannot compel anyone to accept biblical inerrancy. Nor can anyone "prove" biblical inerrancy in the sense of proving on empirical grounds that every statement in the Bible must be true. There are over 31,000 verses in the Bible, and we may very roughly estimate that there are at least thousands of statements concerning matters or issues of fact. Clearly, no one can empirically verify or prove beyond any possibility of doubt that all of those thousands of statements are factually correct. So you have misunderstood me if you thought I meant that biblical inerrancy could be proved in that way. But there are other options between the extremes of unqualified fideism (believing without any evidence or reason at all) and unqualified empiricism (believing only what can be absolutely proven in a purely empirical way).

You wrote:

As a study in contrasts, I have yet to have any Evangelical be able to give me a reasonable explanation for why they believe the Bible to be inerrant. I have had weak collections of "evidences" thrown against the wall in the hopes that something will stick (nothing ever will), and I have been told that it just is and I better accept it. What I've yet to see is someone explain that it's something they've accepted on faith, which is all it is and could ever be. I'm willing to make that admission regarding beliefs for which I have no evidence. I'm looking for an Evangelical who believes the Bible is inerrant and is self-aware enough and has the integrity to do the same.

Again, I would insist on there being mediating positions between absolute fideism and absolute empiricism. Belief in the inerrancy of the Bible is a faith position in that, as I have said, we do not have the information needed to provide absolute empirical proof for each and every individual statement of fact in the Bible. The standard view among evangelical Christians is that we believe in the absolute trustworthiness and reliability of the Bible on the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the view articulated, for example, by the (much maligned of late) Gleason Archer in his book Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (e.g., pp. 15, 20-21) and by Kenneth Kantzer in his Foreword to the same book (p. 9). I presented the standard evangelical argument for the inerrancy of Scripture in an older thread on this forum (which unfortunately is now almost unreadable because of formatting issues). Evangelicals also accept standard arguments of historic Christianity -- arguments used by the early church fathers and by Christian scholars ever since -- that corroborate the supernatural inspiration of the Bible, especially arguments from fulfilled prophecy. You reject both of these arguments, I know. I see no value in re-hashing them over and over. My point is that you have had an evangelical present an explanation for their belief in biblical inerrancy, even though you don't view it as reasonable. And again, I certainly agree that the belief is for us a matter of faith, but this doesn't mean we can't have any evidence supporting it. That is a false dichotomy. Our primary reason for believing in biblical inerrancy is that Jesus Christ viewed Scripture (which at the time consisted of the Old Testament) as inerrant. (Yes, I know you don't accept this historical assessment of Jesus' view.) We view fulfilled prophecy as direct evidence supporting the inspiration of the Bible. We also argue that many (not necessarily all) of the alleged factual difficulties in the Bible can be cleared up, minimally by showing that there is no necessary error, and often by showing that there is in fact no error at all. Our belief in biblical inerrancy is not contingent on our being able to resolve all of the difficulties. In that sense of course it is a position of faith, but that doesn't mean there is "no evidence" that supports or confirms that belief.

[Vance]

As a study in contrasts, I have yet to have any Evangelical be able to give me a reasonable explanation for why they believe the Bible to be inerrant.

Amen!

I have had weak collections of "evidences" thrown against the wall in the hopes that something will stick (nothing ever will), and I have been told that it just is and I better accept it.

Amen!

What I've yet to see is someone explain that it's something they've accepted on faith, which is all it is and could ever be.

Amen!

I'm willing to make that admission regarding beliefs for which I have no evidence. I'm looking for an Evangelical who believes the Bible is inerrant and is self-aware enough and has the integrity to do the same.

Amen!

I can commit no more time to this discussion if you insist that what is really critical to the progression of this thread on Mormonism as Christian is my lack of orthodoxy and the failure of other Mormons here to call me out for it. No one here buys that, and no amount of histrionics is going to change that.

What I see here is that Bowman has lost the argument and is now attempting to divert attention away from that fact by "Ad hominem".

He is unable to attack the argument so he resorts to attacking the person.

[Vance]

Dan,

. . .

Yes, I think it makes no sense whatsoever to accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God in the context of LDS religion and not accept (even if as a matter of sheer faith) the existence of Nephi, or of Mormon or Moroni (arguably Alma's existence is more on the periphery). Nor is this an anti-Mormon assumption, but simply my observation of the view of the Book of Mormon that has been the norm in LDS teaching from the very beginning right up to today.

. . .

such a statement simply does not fit the standard, normative stance of the LDS Church in its teaching about the Book of Abraham. This doesn't mean those like you with "liberal" views of LDS scripture aren't sincere or cannot find a place in LDS religious life. But the fact remains that in this regard your views of the LDS scriptures are not in accord with the official and authoritative teaching of your religion. How that works for you is your business and that of those to whom you are accountable.

See what I mean by "Ad hominem".

[Vance]

Evidence is never "compelling" in that sense, because people can be highly irrational and refuse to believe something even if the evidence for it is overwhelming.

It works the other way as well.

Because people can be highly irrational and continue to believe something even when the evidence against it is overwhelming. In this case, Bible inerrancy.

In my view, there is sufficient evidence to show that belief in biblical inerrancy is reasonable, and specific lines of evidence confirm (provide adequate evidential support for) that belief, but the evidence cannot compel anyone to accept biblical inerrancy.

See what I mean.

[Vance]

There are over 31,000 verses in the Bible, and we may very roughly estimate that there are at least thousands of statements concerning matters or issues of fact. Clearly, no one can empirically verify or prove beyond any possibility of doubt that all of those thousands of statements are factually correct.

But one only need to show that one of those statements is factually incorrect (or contradictory with other statements) to "prove" errancy (or disprove inerrancy). This has been done more than once.