Tvedtnes Review

[diglot]

What we have here is the appeal-to-unnamed-authority fallacy.

Nope. I'm not saying I'm right because certain people agree with me. Try again sir.

Edited November 30, 2011 by diglot

[Scott Lloyd]

Nope. I'm not saying I'm right because certain people agree with me. Try again sir.

Then I wonder about the purpose behind this remark:

Many (if not the vast majority) of the scholars I have read on this issue agree that Paul would not have approved of the practice.

[Pahoran]

As far as I can remember, Tvedtnes doesn't get specific by explicating the "anti-Mormons" are "those who had written books and tracts for no other purpose than to oppose the Church's mission and debunk LDS truth claims".

Well of course he doesn't. I don't know of any writer who explicitly defines his terms every time he uses them. If he did, there'd be no point having them.

But that's what the term means; and so, now you know. Information is always more useful than assumptions.

He just simply says that some anti-Mormons "argue that the ones performing vicarious baptism for the dead are heretics and hence not part of the body of Christians in Corinth", and that they "go so far as to say that Paul would not have approved of the practice [of baptism for the dead]."

Many (if not the vast majority) of the scholars I have read on this issue agree that Paul would not have approved of the practice. This conclusion is not, however, due to them being anti-Mormons or being opposed to LDS theology. It's just the result of looking at this verse in the larger context of Paul's baptismal theology and soteriology as seen in the wider Pauline corpus.

And filtering it through their own Protestant assumptions

Those who look at it in the context of 1 Corinthians 15 recognise that projecting a Calvinistic disdain-for-actually-doing-anything upon Paul does violence to his actual argument, which is that Baptism for the Dead is evidence for the resurrection.

Regards,

Pahoran

[diglot]

Then I wonder about the purpose behind this remark:

Good grief. Read it in the context of my entire post and the post I was responding too.

[ERayR]

Yea, silly me. All the literature I've read on this issue was just simply arriving at conclusions due to the fact that the authors are not part of the LDS Church. It wasn't because they did any sort of historical examination on this issue. Nor was it because they examined Paul's baptismal and soteriological theology to see what interpretations are more congruent with Paul's thought. It was simply because they're pesky Protestants with an agenda, who somehow managed to get all their studies through a rigorous peer-reviewing process without their obvious bias being found out.

You misunderstood, I think. They would not even have to have heard of the LDS Church. The simple fact that they accept Paul's writings as inspired and they themselves do not believe in baptism for the dead would influence their interpretations of what was written. Its called bias and we all have them.

[Scott Lloyd]

Good grief. Read it in the context of my entire post and the post I was responding too.

OK. You're saying Pahoran's wrong because your unnamed "scholars" disagree with him.

I don't see a qualitative difference. The fallacies are still present.

[Rob Bowman]

Robert,

Hi again. You wrote:

It doesn't look like Pahoran is going to reply any time soon, so I hope you don't mind my commenting.

Not at all. I wonder why Pahoran is not responding?

Now, I'm a bit puzzled by your response. You quoted my quotation from 1 Corinthians 15:29 where I highlighted the third-person plural forms of two Greek verbs in the text, which explain why "they" is not a mistranslation as Tvedtnes had claimed. However, you neither quoted nor commented on any of the three points I made. For your convenience, here they are:

First, Tvedtnes is incorrect in claiming, in your words, that the word "they" in 1 Corinthians 15:29 "is an artifact of the English translation." Rather, it is an accurate translation of the Greek text, which uses third-person plural verbs:

"Otherwise, what will they do [poiēsousin, 3rd person plural] who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized [baptizontai, 3rd person plural] for the dead?"

Second, I don't know anyone, including any "anti-Mormons," who deny that some of the Corinthian Christians were engaged in the practice mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:29. So this seems to be a straw-man.

Third, "anti-Mormons" often do argue that in this context these third-person plural verbs are to be understood as referring to a group of people distinct from Paul and the mainstream Corinthian Christians. They are hardly alone in thinking so. Consider the following quotations from scholarly commentators, none of whom seems to be concerned about refuting Mormonism....

Those are the three points I made in my post. Now, let's look at what you wrote:

Cf. II Maccabees 12:44b "it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead" (NRSV)

12:44a "if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again,"

12:45c "Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin."

There are other parallels as well, e.g., I Cor 15:20 "fallen asleep" // II Macc 12:45 "fall asleep," leading the late James Barr to conclude that Paul actually had II Macc 12 partly in mind as he wrote his words in I Cor 15.*

*Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Westminster, 1983), 40-43, n. 19.

I don't know what your point is here. Many commentators have noted the similarity between 1 Corinthians 15:29 and 2 Maccabees 12:44-45. It is plausible to see some similarity of thought between the two passages. It does not follow, however, that Paul was endorsing the practice of baptizing people for the dead, let alone tell us just what this meant and who was doing it. Paul's point is often taken to be simply that this practice that some at Corinth were doing made no sense if the dead will not be raised, without any judgment expressed by Paul for or against the practice itself.

You wrote:

Still, one must contend with commentators such as Gordon A. Carle, who maintain that the practice was a Marcionite heresy -- “How Mormon Scholars Conduct Patristic Research to Prove the Legitimacy of Their Religion: An Analysis of Mormon Use of Patristic Literature and History,” GJCT 4/1 (Feb 2004), available online at http://www.trinityse...C%20v4%20m1.htm . Who is setting up straw men?

Your link didn't work for me. You seem to be suggesting that Carle's article is a straw-man criticism of LDS apologetics. Is that right? What is it about that article that leads you to that assessment?

[diglot]

OK. You're saying Pahoran's wrong because your unnamed "scholars" disagree with him.

I don't see a qualitative difference. The fallacies are still present.

Learn to read things in context. I was not using an argument from authority.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert,

Now, I'm a bit puzzled by your response. You quoted my quotation from 1 Corinthians 15:29 where I highlighted the third-person plural forms of two Greek verbs in the text, which explain why "they" is not a mistranslation as Tvedtnes had claimed. However, you neither quoted nor commented on any of the three points I made. For your convenience, here they are:

Those are the three points I made in my post. Now, let's look at what you wrote:

I don't know what your point is here.

Sorry not to be more explicit.

I wasn't finding fault with your grammatical comments at all, but I did think that it would be helpful to step back and take a broader look at the passage under discussion -- since understanding Christianity depends heavily on an understanding of Judaica (something long neglected in Christian circles).

Many commentators have noted the similarity between 1 Corinthians 15:29 and 2 Maccabees 12:44-45.

I am very happy to hear that. I was only aware of Barr's comparison.

It is plausible to see some similarity of thought between the two passages. It does not follow, however, that Paul was endorsing the practice of baptizing people for the dead, let alone tell us just what this meant and who was doing it. Paul's point is often taken to be simply that this practice that some at Corinth were doing made no sense if the dead will not be raised, without any judgment expressed by Paul for or against the practice itself.

Yes, it is difficult to be sure what Paul fully had in mind, but as a trained Pharisaic rabbi he would likely have had the theological implications in mind at the very least. Whether that meant approval or disapproval is not indicated. We might want to ask what sort of idea a Jew might have had in mind when considering Rabbi Akiba's tale of a son's prayer saving his dead father from punishment in Hell (Joseph H. Hertz, ed., The Authorized Daily Prayer Book, 2nd ed. [N.Y.: Bloch, 1948], 270-271). We are again reminded of II Macc 12, and of other texts and practices.

Your link didn't work for me.

Sorry. The Global Journal of Classical Theology is available at http://www.phc.edu/gj_journalmain.php .

You seem to be suggesting that Carle's article is a straw-man criticism of LDS apologetics. Is that right? What is it about that article that leads you to that assessment?

Carle not only spoke of some his coreligionists being "duped into thinking of Mormonism as just another species of Christendom,” but he also claimed that Mormon scholarship depends on fallacies such as circular reasoning, a priori assumptions, question begging, etc., and that Mormon scholars misinterpret scriptural and patristic sources in some eisegetic manner (as though Hans Hillerbrand was not publicly upbraided by Robert M. Grant for making just such a ridiculous accusation against Hugh Nibley). As though the concept of sola scriptura is not subject to the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

Now of course Carle is entitled to his opinion on such matters, but he became so freewheeling in his criticisms that he also made a number of blatantly false statements about how young Mormon scholars get through graduate school -- as though the LDS Church pays their way, when the truth is that they get good grades, go to fine universities, and pay their own way (just like other grad students), and run up onerous grad school debt (just like other grad students). There is no free ride. The upshot is that he actually names several such scholars, including the late Hugh Nibley!! (who graduated summa cum laude from UCLA in the midst of the Great Depression, with no help from his Church)

What is worse, the editor of GJCT (John Warwick Montgomery) made a point of mocking the LDS in that same issue, something which I note you are loathe to do. Naturally, I wrote a letter to Montgomery at that time protesting his unprofessional editorial conduct, and sent copies to two honest evangelicals. Warwick did not deign to reply.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Scott Lloyd]

Learn to read things in context. I was not using an argument from authority.

To be precise, I said "appeal to unnamed authority." And I guess we'll just have to let the individual reader determine whether this and the other fallacy I identified, appeal to popularity, are present here.

[diglot]

To be precise, I said "appeal to unnamed authority." And I guess we'll just have to let the individual reader determine whether this and the other fallacy I identified, appeal to popularity, are present here.

Ok, but lets see the point I was actually making (and the full paragraph you took that sentence from). I was responding to the following:

The anti-Mormons Tvedtnes referenced were those who had written books and tracts for no other purpose than to oppose the Church's mission and debunk LDS truth claims. Their treatment of Baptism for the Dead serves only one agenda, namely to argue that "them Marmunz is wrong." They, unlike Hull, simply have no interest in it beyond that.

Thus, in response I said that:

Many (if not the vast majority) of the scholars I have read on this issue agree that Paul would not have approved of the practice. This conclusion is not, however, due to them being anti-Mormons or being opposed to LDS theology. It's just the result of looking at this verse in the larger context of Paul's baptismal theology and soteriology as seen in the wider Pauline corpus.

My point is that the other poster was incorrect in saying that people who disagree with an LDS interpretation of the verse in question merely do so due to wanting to prove "them Marmunz is wrong". As an example, I point out that practically all of the scholars I have read on this verse do not think Paul would have agreed with the practice. Why do they think this? Is it because they just want to prove "them Marmunz is wrong"? No, its because they approach this issue through historical inquiry and by considering Paul's baptismal and soteriological theology as a whole as displayed in the Pauline epistles.

An argument from authority would be me saying, "Most scholars say that Paul did not approve of vicarious baptism, therefore I am correct in saying that Paul did not approve of vicarious baptism." But that is not what I was doing.

The mere mention of "scholars" or the "consensus" is not automatically indicative of an argument from authority (i.e. argumentum ad populum), just as a personal attack is not automatically indicative of argumentum ad hominem (though most people on the interwebs seem to falsely think otherwise).

Edited December 1, 2011 by diglot

[Scott Lloyd]

Ok, but lets see the point I was actually making (and the full paragraph you took that sentence from). I was responding to the following:

Thus, in response I said that:

My point is that the other poster was incorrect in saying that people who disagree with an LDS interpretation of the verse in question merely do so due to wanting to prove "them Marmunz is wrong". As an example, I point out that practically all of the scholars I have read on this verse do not think Paul would have agreed with the practice. Why do they think this? Is it because they just want to prove "them Marmunz is wrong"? No, its because they approach this issue through historical inquiry and by considering Paul's baptismal and soteriological theology as a whole as displayed in the Pauline epistles.

OK, I see what you were doing.

But the point still stands, I think, about the likelihood of confirmation bias among those who already reject the validity of the doctrine of baptism for the dead, whether or not they relate the practice to Mormonism. I see nothing in Paul's epistles that shows definitively — or even persuasively — that Paul disapproved of baptism for the dead (or, as it is alternately rendered, baptism in behalf of the dead).

[Pahoran]

Ok, but lets see the point I was actually making (and the full paragraph you took that sentence from). I was responding to the following:

Thus, in response I said that:

My point is that the other poster was incorrect in saying that people who disagree with an LDS interpretation of the verse in question merely do so due to wanting to prove "them Marmunz is wrong".

However, the "other poster" did not say that.

The "other poster" said that Tvedtnes was referring, not to "scholars," but to anti-Mormons.

And the "other poster" further went on to attempt (in vain) to explain to you that anti-Mormons do not consist of absolutely everybody who has a different opinion of a subject than what is found in LDS teaching, but of people engaged in polemical activity against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This was a futile effort, because you keep hanging on to the silly and unsupportable assumption that Tvedtnes' anti-Mormons consist of absolutely everybody who has a different opinion of a subject than what is found in LDS teaching. So you waved a hand at a bunch of unnamed scholars who hold a particular opinion, declared that they weren't writing in opposition to the Church, and therefore Tvedtnes must not have been referring to people who oppose the Church.

But he was.

Regards,

Pahoran

[diglot]

However, the "other poster" did not say that.

The "other poster" said that Tvedtnes was referring, not to "scholars," but to anti-Mormons.

And the "other poster" further went on to attempt (in vain) to explain to you that anti-Mormons do not consist of absolutely everybody who has a different opinion of a subject than what is found in LDS teaching, but of people engaged in polemical activity against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This was a futile effort, because you keep hanging on to the silly and unsupportable assumption that Tvedtnes' anti-Mormons consist of absolutely everybody who has a different opinion of a subject than what is found in LDS teaching. So you waved a hand at a bunch of unnamed scholars who hold a particular opinion, declared that they weren't writing in opposition to the Church, and therefore Tvedtnes must not have been referring to people who oppose the Church.

But he was.

Regards,

Pahoran

As always, Pahoran, your comments are entirely irrelevant. What you just said doesn't change the point of my discussion with Scott Lloyd as to whether I was engaging in an appeal to authority.

I honestly don't even know why I bother responding to your rubbish. I think it's because I just like to see what nonsense you will spew out in response.

[Pahoran]

Diglot,

You previously posted:

My point is that the other poster was incorrect in saying that people who disagree with an LDS interpretation of the verse in question merely do so due to wanting to prove "them Marmunz is wrong".

So I then pointed out that "the other poster" (me) was not "saying that people who disagree with an LDS interpretation of the verse in question merely do so due to wanting to prove 'them Marmunz is wrong'."

So now you come back with:

As always, Pahoran, your comments are entirely irrelevant. What you just said doesn't change the point of my discussion with Scott Lloyd as to whether I was engaging in an appeal to authority.

My "entirely irrelevant" comments addressed what you said was your "point."

What was your "point," Diglot?

My point is that the other poster was incorrect in saying that people who disagree with an LDS interpretation of the verse in question merely do so due to wanting to prove "them Marmunz is wrong".

Since I directly addressed what you said was your "point," how was I supposed to know that my remarks were going to be "entirely irrelevant?"

It seems to me (and I may be wrong, after all) that addressing what another poster explicitly describes as his "point" cannot really be irrelevant. It could be wrong, muddled, incoherent or otherwise faulty in some way, but the only way it could be "entirely irrelevant" would be if the "point" being addressed was itself "entirely irrelevant."

I honestly don't even know why I bother responding to your rubbish. I think it's because I just like to see what nonsense you will spew out in response.

Thank you for that fine contribution to civil discourse.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Minos]

One more insult = closed thread.

[diglot]

Diglot,

You previously posted:

So I then pointed out that "the other poster" (me) was not "saying that people who disagree with an LDS interpretation of the verse in question merely do so due to wanting to prove 'them Marmunz is wrong'."

So now you come back with:

My "entirely irrelevant" comments addressed what you said was your "point."

What was your "point," Diglot?

Since I directly addressed what you said was your "point," how was I supposed to know that my remarks were going to be "entirely irrelevant?"

It seems to me (and I may be wrong, after all) that addressing what another poster explicitly describes as his "point" cannot really be irrelevant. It could be wrong, muddled, incoherent or otherwise faulty in some way, but the only way it could be "entirely irrelevant" would be if the "point" being addressed was itself "entirely irrelevant."

Thank you for that fine contribution to civil discourse.

Regards,

Pahoran

Perhaps I should have been more clearer that you were not saying all "scholars" who disagree with an LDS interpretation of the verse in question merely do so due to wanting to prove 'them Marmunz is wrong', but that it is "anti-Mormons". However, I do not agree that Tvedntes only calls "anti-mormons" as those who have written books and tracts for no other purpose than to oppose the Church's mission and debunk LDS truth claims. He doesn't say or imply that anywhere I can see. He does say that anti-Mormons say that Paul didn't approve of the practice. Reading that at face value only makes me think he is making a sweeping generalization that anyone who thinks that is an anti-Mormon.

All of this, however, is irrelevant to my discussion with Scott which was over the presence or absence of an argument from authority.

[diglot]

One more insult = closed thread.

Sorry, some people bring out the worst in me. I will bite my tongue in the future

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps I should have been more clearer that you were not saying all "scholars" who disagree with an LDS interpretation of the verse in question merely do so due to wanting to prove 'them Marmunz is wrong', but that it is "anti-Mormons". However, I do not agree that Tvedntes only calls "anti-mormons" as those who have written books and tracts for no other purpose than to oppose the Church's mission and debunk LDS truth claims. He doesn't say or imply that anywhere I can see. He does say that anti-Mormons say that Paul didn't approve of the practice. Reading that at face value only makes me think he is making a sweeping generalization that anyone who thinks that is an anti-Mormon.

All of this, however, is irrelevant to my discussion with Scott which was over the presence or absence of an argument from authority.

diglot, I think Pahoran makes a valid point. Very rarely, if ever, do I see the term anti-Mormon applied to people who merely disagree with the teachings of Mormonism. It is inconceivable to me that someone as intelligent as Tvedtnes would be using the term in this way. I think the onus for the misunderstanding is on you for jumping to a conclusion. When Tvedtnes says that anti-Mormons say Paul didn't approve of baptism for the dead, he is quite correct: Those who stridently and polemically oppose Mormonism are likely to make such a claim.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[KevinG]

One more insult = closed thread.

Now this is an insult!

[diglot]

diglot, I think Pahoran makes a valid point. Very rarely, if ever, do I see the term anti-Mormon applied to people who merely disagree with the teachings of Mormonism.

I'm just going by my personal experience as its been applied to me here on these forums.

It is inconceivable to me that someone as intelligent as Tvedtness would be using the term in this way. I think the onus for the misunderstanding is on you for jumping to a conclusion.

Fair enough, though if thats what Tvedtnes meant, then I think he could have been clearer.

Regardless, Pahoran and myself have been over this already on this thread. I'm just waiting for him to address the other, more crucial, point as to the impetus behind this thread.

When Tvedtness says that anti-Mormons say Paul didn't approve of the practice, he is quite correct: Those who stridently and polemically oppose Mormonism are likely to make such a claim

But it gives the impression (to me at least) that Tvedtnes is saying they make that claim about Paul because they are anti-Mormon.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm just going by my personal experience as its been applied to me here on these forums.

By "these forums," do you mean the Mormon Dialogue and Discussions Board? Did somebody here call you anti-Mormon? If so, why?

But it gives the impression (to me at least) that Tvedtnes is saying they make that claim about Paul because they are anti-Mormon.

Regardless of whether that's what Tvedtnes is actually saying, it's a reasonable conclusion, given the fact it can't be persuasively shown from Paul's epistles that he disapproved of baptism in behalf of the dead.

[Pahoran]

Perhaps I should have been more clearer that you were not saying all "scholars" who disagree with an LDS interpretation of the verse in question merely do so due to wanting to prove 'them Marmunz is wrong', but that it is "anti-Mormons". However, I do not agree that Tvedntes only calls "anti-mormons" as those who have written books and tracts for no other purpose than to oppose the Church's mission and debunk LDS truth claims. He doesn't say or imply that anywhere I can see. He does say that anti-Mormons say that Paul didn't approve of the practice. Reading that at face value only makes me think he is making a sweeping generalization that anyone who thinks that is an anti-Mormon.

Please see again my post #43. Especially the first paragraph.

Regardless, Pahoran and myself have been over this already on this thread. I'm just waiting for him to address the other, more crucial, point as to the impetus behind this thread.

So you're still waiting for me to write my post #34. I see.

But it gives the impression (to me at least) that Tvedtnes is saying they make that claim about Paul because they are anti-Mormon.

Once again, as I pointed out in my post #43: Tvedtnes is critiquing an argument by an author (Hull) who clearly thinks something at least partially similar about Paul's view; and yet Tvedtnes makes it quite clear that the anti-Mormons he refers to are people other than Hull.

Therefore it doesn't seem to be a very huge leap in logic to infer that Tvedtnes understands that holding such a view does not make one an anti-Mormon.

And he is, after all, writing primarily for an audience that understands what "anti-Mormon" means, and is unlikely to leap to unreasonable conclusions about who he has in mind by that descriptor.

Regards,

Pahoran

[diglot]

By "these forums," do you mean the Mormon Dialogue and Discussions Board? Did somebody here call you anti-Mormon? If so, why?

Because certain people on these forums seemingly think throwing the label "anti-Mormon" at someone who disagrees with them is a good argument.

Regardless of whether that's what Tvedtnes is actually saying, it's a reasonable conclusion, given the fact it can't be persuasively shown from Paul's epistles that he disapproved of baptism in behalf of the dead.

I disagree (but I have no intention of getting into a debate about this right now).

[diglot]

So you're still waiting for me to write my post #34. I see.

No I read it. Its just you glossing over the point by ignoring it and saying you don't think the implications are as profound as I think they are. Obviously, though, you don't try to explain what you think the implications are. I, myself, can see no other option other than what I gave, that (1) the author pretended to know Greek but in reality doesn't have a clue about it, or (2) he does know Greek but never bothered to read the verse in Greek and never read the book properly either.

Even if the rest of the review is all peaches and cream, whichever one of those implications you pick warrant labeling the review as pitiful (IMO at least). A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

Edited December 2, 2011 by diglot