Institute for Religious Research Study Guide Challenge

[Rob Bowman]

By the way, Charles Harrell, a BYU professor of technology who has written quite a bit on theology, in his book "This Is My Doctrine": The Development of Mormon Theology, reviews the evidence and concludes that the Book of Mormon contains "classical trinitarian" statements as well as statements that he describes as "modalistic" (109-112). His whole discussion is worth reading. You may disagree with Harrell, but you cannot plausibly claim that he is an anti-Mormon "looking for" modalism or that he is seizing on something merely for its "polemical value."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Seth,

You wrote:

Thanks. I'm unclear where you stand religiously and theologically, but it may be that if we were not meeting on a Mormon apologetics forum your agreement with me would be much higher than 10%. I actually agree with most Mormons on a fair number of substantive issues (e.g., the sinlessness, death, and physical resurrection of Jesus Christ; the immorality of abortion, adultery, homosexual conduct, etc.), but the dynamics of the board tend to accentuate our differences rather than our agreements.

As I recall he is currently an agnostic. He used to be LDS (in practice), I think he even attends still. I recall that he currently does not believe in the truth claims of the LDS or really any church or religious organization.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

I feel confident that you are choosing to accept them as part of "the interpretive community" only for rhetorical purposes specific to this exchange. In other contexts you surely would not do so. Some of those communities (rightly, in my estimation) interpret the Book of Mormon to condemn the plural marriages of Joseph Smith, for example. You and they cannot both be right. In this respect, and in many other respects, you are competing interpretive communities, not a single interpretive community with exclusive rights of interpretation. That is simply not a coherent claim.

"You feel confident," do you?

I feel supremely confident that you have made exactly zero effort to acquaint yourself with my actual position on any subject, including this one. I further feel confident that you have resorted to the fallacy of poisoning the well purely for your own rhetorical and polemical purposes.

You appear to be projecting your own sub-Christian polemical approach onto me. "In other contexts" I "surely would" include the splinter groups in the interpretive community of Book of Mormon believers. In fact, I very consistently have done so.

I have, of course, disagreed with their idiosyncratic interpretations; but I have always accepted as the point of departure that they are genuine Book of Mormon believers with an actual stake in what that book means, something no non-believer can have.

I find it amusing that you would think the splinter groups are correct to ignore Jacob 2:30. "I feel confident" (to coin a phrase) that your agreement with them is entirely opportunistic and agenda-driven. But nonetheless, I will be happy to discuss that with you, if you think you can defend it.

Your line of attack (and that is the correct word) here is ad hominem.

And given your well-poisoning efforts above, are we supposed to believe that this is something of which you disapprove?

I reach more or less the same conclusion that some of those other Mormon sectarians reach as to the theology of the Book of Mormon. Some of them would cite the Book of Mormon against the plurality-of-gods doctrine of the LDS Church, just as I do.

In the which, they are wrong. But at least they are sincerely wrong. As I said: they have a stake in what the book actually teaches; you, not to put too fine a point on it, do not.

Your objections to my views are grounded entirely on ad hominem criticisms of my motivations rather than the facts.

No. It is based upon the fact that, by your own admission, you have no stake in what the book actually teaches. As such, your use of it for polemical purposes can never be any more than opportunistic.

Your fellow-EV, Paul Derengowski, whom you no doubt regard as a splendid fellow just like Aaron Shafavaloff, was active in a number of hate-based web fora. He managed to persuade at least two of them that Mormons should never be allowed to argue their case from the Bible, because we don't believe it to be inerrant to the extent that Protestants do. He also boasted that he employed that same rule in his teaching. However, the fact remains that we are genuine Bible believers; we have a stake in what it teaches. You are not a Book of Mormon believer; it means nothing to you, and as such you are unable to even try to make a good faith effort to recover its meaning.

You wrote:

Setting aside your sarcasm, whether or not Mormons have exclusive province of interpretation of their holy books, surely I have some sort of privileged status with regard to interpreting my own words. Your interpretation of my earlier comment ignored the first three words: "In that case, the Bible means what we evangelicals say it means, because we are the interpretive community that accepts the Bible as authoritative. Agreed?" Those three words telegraph to the observant reader that what follows assumes for the sake of argument that what you claim is the case.

Except that, as has been demonstrated, what I actually claim and what you choose to attribute to me, are two different things.

You see, I accept that you do indeed "have some sort of privileged status with regard to interpreting [your] own words." So, in fact, does everyone, including me. Perhaps you should point this out to your loyal cheer squad, whose middle name may or may not be "Royal."

You wrote:

It isn't bigotry to criticize false doctrine. I call as my witnesses Jesus (Matt. 22:23-32) and the apostles Paul (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:12-19; Gal. 3:1-5; Phil. 3:1; Col. 2:4-8; 1 Tim. 4:1), Peter (2 Peter 2:1-3), John (1 John 2:18-19), and Jude (Jude 3-4).

Not one of whom set up propaganda mills attacking the faith of others.

You should have been able to check for yourself. Our website currently has resources on the false religious teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, the Church Universal and Triumphant, the Mind Sciences (e.g., Christian Science), and the New Age movement.

Like I said: your bigotry does seem to be at least somewhat ecumenical. But this is an utterly conventional list of Protestant bêtes noires. You really are merely pandering to the tastes of your market, aren't you?

You wrote:

So you assert. I respectfully disagree.

You have no stake in what the book teaches, so your disagreement is irrelevant.

You wrote:

Just because I am convinced that the Bible's teachings are harmonious does not mean I must assume the same to be true of every other religion's collection of religious texts.

Which pretty much says it all. Being "convinced that the Bible's teachings are harmonious," you will do whatever it takes to harmonise them. Having absolutely no stake in the harmony and consistency of any other volume of scripture, you will make no such effort.

Which is exactly what Bill Hamblin criticised you for.

I don't criticise you for it; as I've repeatedly pointed out, you have no stake in recovering the meaning of the Book of Mormon, so no-one should expect you to make any serious effort to do so. But that means it is quite extraordinarily arrogant for you to presume to substitute your judgement for those who do. It is not for you to judge whether our "advocates provide plausible, cogent explanations for apparent discrepancies." If you were anything other than an anti-Mormon propagandist, your role would simply be to report those explanations without comment.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

By the way, Charles Harrell, a BYU professor of technology who has written quite a bit on theology, in his book "This Is My Doctrine": The Development of Mormon Theology, reviews the evidence and concludes that the Book of Mormon contains "classical trinitarian" statements as well as statements that he describes as "modalistic" (109-112). His whole discussion is worth reading. You may disagree with Harrell, but you cannot plausibly claim that he is an anti-Mormon "looking for" modalism or that he is seizing on something merely for its "polemical value."

Not that this help Pahoran, but I think this assessment is correct. However I think to say that the BoM contains certain statements that are classic trinitarian and some statements are modalisistic most LDS would not not claim to believe in either, so to act like the book teaches those things is were the issue comes in. I think that might be what Pahoran might be referring to when he talks about the "interpretive community".

Really all I am trying to do is help in the dialogue.

Pahoran, I think, only because I have meet Rob, that perhaps we should dial back some of the rhetoric. It is only a suggestion. Carry on.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[JDave]

Rob,

Bringing this back to the OP shows, I think, a good reference of what is reasonable. As you have explained, you think it is NOT reasonable to say the "The Unknown God" and God are being equated in The New Testament. However, you claim it is reasonable to say the "The Great Spirit" and God are being equated in The Book of Mormon. The reasons you cited for New Testament harmonization are just as good as the reasons provided for Book of Mormon harmonization. In fact, the point made by Pahoran that Lamoni actually corrects his terminology with respect to God is a superbly better reason. Perhaps you could address that point of Pahoran's? I don't think you did so before.

[Pahoran]

Rob,

Bringing this back to the OP shows, I think, a good reference of what is reasonable. As you have explained, you think it is NOT reasonable to say the "The Unknown God" and God are being equated in The New Testament. However, you claim it is reasonable to say the "The Great Spirit" and God are being equated in The Book of Mormon. The reasons you cited for New Testament harmonization are just as good as the reasons provided for Book of Mormon harmonization. In fact, the point made by Pahoran that Lamoni actually corrects his terminology with respect to God is a superbly better reason. Perhaps you could address that point of Pahoran's? I don't think you did so before.

Good point. To be fair, Rob may have genuinely missed it because it was not addressed to him, but it was Post 31 on page 2.

And I, too, would be interested to see what he has to say about it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[sethpayne]

As I recall he is currently an agnostic. He used to be LDS (in practice), I think he even attends still. I recall that he currently does not believe in the truth claims of the LDS or really any church or religious organization.

Just a nitpik to add some clarity: I am a theist, not an agnostic. I firmly believe in God.

I also attend LDS Church services regularly and hold church callings from time to time.

As to the LDS Church's truth claims? On those I am very much agnostic.

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You claim that I admit that I have no stake in what the Book of Mormon teaches. Your claim is false; I have made no such admission. I do have a stake in knowing what the Book of Mormon teaches. In the first place, in order for me to consider fairly whether its claim to be the word of God is true, I must become acquainted with its teachings. It would be wrong of me to reject the Book of Mormon without knowing anything about what it means, would it not? Second, having become acquainted with the Book of Mormon sufficiently to reach the conclusion that it is not the word of God, I have a stake in knowing as accurately and fully as I can what it teaches if I wish to help those who mistakenly accept it as the word of God. Therefore, I do have a stake in knowing what the Book of Mormon teaches, even if not as one who accepts it as the word of God.

As for the rest of your post, you choose to continue with ad hominem (and now also guilt-by-association) attacks instead of discussing issues with civility. You choose to continue to impugn my motives without knowing me and on the basis of no facts whatsoever except that I have the temerity to publish material that disagrees with the teachings of your religion. It does not seem to occur to you that I might actually be sincere. I have been more than patient with you -- and this is not the first go-around we have had like this -- but I really think there is no point in my continuing to reason with you.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

You claim that I admit that I have no stake in what the Book of Mormon teaches. Your claim is false; I have made no such admission. I do have a stake in knowing what the Book of Mormon teaches. In the first place, in order for me to consider fairly whether its claim to be the word of God is true, I must become acquainted with its teachings. It would be wrong of me to reject the Book of Mormon without knowing anything about what it means, would it not? Second, having become acquainted with the Book of Mormon sufficiently to reach the conclusion that it is not the word of God, I have a stake in knowing as accurately and fully as I can what it teaches if I wish to help those who mistakenly accept it as the word of God. Therefore, I do have a stake in knowing what the Book of Mormon teaches, even if not as one who accepts it as the word of God.

As for the rest of your post, you choose to continue with ad hominem (and now also guilt-by-association) attacks instead of discussing issues with civility. You choose to continue to impugn my motives without knowing me and on the basis of no facts whatsoever except that I have the temerity to publish material that disagrees with the teachings of your religion. It does not seem to occur to you that I might actually be sincere. I have been more than patient with you -- and this is not the first go-around we have had like this -- but I really think there is no point in my continuing to reason with you.

That's a convenient way of getting out of responding to Post 31.

In case anyone has forgotten what it said, here it is again:

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

That's a Grahamism. Actually it was Lamoni who held that belief:

Alma 18:

5 Now this was the tradition of Lamoni, which he had received from his father, that there was a Great Spirit. Notwithstanding they believed in a Great Spirit, they supposed that whatsoever they did was right; nevertheless, Lamoni began to fear exceedingly, with fear lest he had done wrong in slaying his servants;

And Lamoni who introduced the concept into the discussion:

Alma 18:

18 Now when the king had heard these words, he marveled again, for he beheld that Ammon could discern his thoughts; but notwithstanding this, king Lamoni did open his mouth, and said unto him: Who art thou? Art thou that Great Spirit, who knows all things?

Then Ammon tried to teach Lamoni true doctrine:

Alma 18:

24 And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God?

25 And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth.

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

IOW, Ammon did what any good missionary would do: he taught Lamoni in terms that he was familiar with so there was a starting point for him to begin to understand something.

Just as Aaron subsequently teaches Lamoni's father in the terms in which he is familiar.

However, after the Lamanites have become converted, they adopt a new religious vocabulary appropriate to their new beliefs:

Alma 27:

8 And the king said unto him: Yea, if the Lord saith unto us go, we will go down unto our brethren, and we will be their slaves until we repair unto them the many murders and sins which we have committed against them.

9 But Ammon said unto him: It is against the law of our brethren, which was established by my father, that there should be any slaves among them; therefore let us go down and rely upon the mercies of our brethren.

10 But the king said unto him: Inquire of the Lord, and if he saith unto us go, we will go; otherwise we will perish in the land.

IOW, after the missionaries have taught the Lamanites effectively, the "Great Spirit" disappears, to be replaced by The Lord.

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

No. It really doesn't.

That was easy.

Can you play upon this flute? 'Tis as easy...

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

That's a convenient way of getting out of responding to Post 31.

While you were posting the above sarcastic remark, I was working on replying to Dave's request. I still am.

[wenglund]

I don't feel it necessary to claim that the Book of Mormon is consistently modalist from beginning to end. I think rather that its theology is a rude mixture of modalist and trinitarian statements.

Depending upon who is doing the interpreting, the same, and more (binitarianism, henotheism, strict monotheism, etc.) can be said of the Bible. It can also be said of the early church fathers. I happen to interpret a lot of what Rob says as modalistics.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

While you were posting the above sarcastic remark, I was working on replying to Dave's request. I still am.

Glad to hear it. I look forward to seeing it.

After all, you assured me that you will accept cogent explanations put forward by believers.

But is a "sarcastic remark" really as bad as two padded paragraphs of pompous posturing and self-important blowharding?

Whether you recognise it or not, you do not have a stake in understanding the Book of Mormon. You admitted as much when you proclaimed yourself an unbeliever therein. You have a stake in debunking it; and making an effort to understand it would only get in the way.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rob Bowman]

Dave,

You wrote:

Bringing this back to the OP shows, I think, a good reference of what is reasonable. As you have explained, you think it is NOT reasonable to say the "The Unknown God" and God are being equated in The New Testament. However, you claim it is reasonable to say the "The Great Spirit" and God are being equated in The Book of Mormon. The reasons you cited for New Testament harmonization are just as good as the reasons provided for Book of Mormon harmonization. In fact, the point made by Pahoran that Lamoni actually corrects his terminology with respect to God is a superbly better reason. Perhaps you could address that point of Pahoran's? I don't think you did so before.

Actually, I didn't say that God wasn't the unknown god. What I said, in response to Bill Hamblin, was that the "unknown God" that Paul offered to tell the Athenians about was not a pagan Greek deity.

Let me begin here:

"And now, when the king heard these words, he said unto them: Now I know that it is the Great Spirit; and he has come down at this time to preserve your lives, that I might not slay you as I did your brethren. Now this is the Great Spirit of whom our fathers have spoken. Now this was the tradition of Lamoni, which he had received from his father, that there was a Great Spirit. Notwithstanding they believed in a Great Spirit, they supposed that whatsoever they did was right; nevertheless, Lamoni began to fear exceedingly, with fear lest he had done wrong in slaying his servants" (Alma 18:4-5).

Now, the Book of Mormon does make it clear that Lamoni's people had some false traditions, so in that context one might suppose that their belief that God was a Spirit would be one of those false traditions. However, the clause, "Notwithstanding they believed in a Great Spirit," followed by the critical remark that they thought whatever they did was right, seems to imply that their belief in a Great Spirit was a good belief. The logic of the sentence is, "Even though they had this right, they had this other thing wrong." We can see that Lamoni's beliefs were not all wrong when later in the same passage he asks:

"Art thou that Great Spirit, who knows all things?" (v. 18).

As his belief that God knows all things was correct, it is possible that his belief that God was a Great Spirit was also correct, as verse 5 appears to imply.

"And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God? And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth. And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yea. And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth? And he said: Yea, I believe that he created all things which are in the earth; but I do not know the heavens. And Ammon said unto him: The heavens is a place where God dwells and all his holy angels" (vv. 24-30).

Lamoni says he doesn't know what the word "God" means and Ammon explains that by God he means the Great Spirit. You ask if this isn't like Paul quoting the Athenian altar to an unknown god and saying that he had come to tell them about the God they admitted they didn't know. Well, the altar to an unknown god was for the Athenians a generic reference, not a reference to one specific God; Paul's use of this generic reference is rhetorical in that he was taking their admission of ignorance and using it to introduce the revelation of the specific God. In a literal sense, though, the description "unknown god" applies perfectly to Paul's God: the Athenians literally did not know that God, so to them he was literally an unknown god. So if you want to press the parallel, we should say that Ammon's God was literally the Great Spirit. And up to this point in the passage, we have no reason not to take it that way.

"Ammon said unto him: I am a man; and man in the beginning was created after the image of God, and I am called by his Holy Spirit to teach these things unto this people, that they may be brought to a knowledge of that which is just and true" (v. 34).

Part of the evidence to be considered in deciding if the description of God as "the Great Spirit" is to be taken as accepted by Ammon is to see what else Ammon affirms about God and about man's relationship with God. What we find is that God knows all things, that he created all things in the heavens and on the earth, and that he created man in the beginning after his image. All of these affirmations fit very comfortably in the traditional monotheistic world view of one God who is Spirit and who makes the physical world and everything in it, including man. That man -- not just his body -- is said to have been "created" in God's image likewise fits in this world view. That is, human beings are temporal creatures, with the first man brought into existence by an act of creation. In this context the "image" language does not imply that God is himself a man, although the Book of Mormon does understand the "image" language to imply that God was in some sense anthropomorphic. The very text that reveals this understanding also reveals that God was not a man -- yet:

"And because he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth" (Mos. 7:27).

According to this text, man was made to look like God in some way, and God was later to come down and take on the image of man, taking on flesh and blood. This clearly means that God had not already been a being of flesh, but was going to take on flesh when he came as a flesh and blood mortal.

If we assume some coherence in these passages, as I think we should, then in Alma 18 the God whom Ammon calls the Great Spirit is Christ, who was at the time not a being of flesh but rather one of spirit. And if you'll review the discussion in this thread you'll see that other Mormons have proffered that explanation for Alma 18. And they are right, but then they want to suggest that this leaves open the door for the idea that God the Father, as distinct from Christ, was a being of flesh. That idea is found nowhere in the Book of Mormon or in any statement by Joseph Smith prior to the 1840s. Furthermore, the emphatic statements in the Book of Mormon that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God -- and that Christ is the Father and the Son -- are most naturally understood to preclude the idea of the Father and the Son as two Gods with two different kinds of bodies, one of flesh and the other of spirit.

"But this is not all; for he expounded unto them the plan of redemption, which was prepared from the foundation of the world; and he also made known unto them concerning the coming of Christ, and all the works of the Lord did he make known unto them. And it came to pass that after he had said all these things, and expounded them to the king, that the king believed all his words. And he began to cry unto the Lord, saying: O Lord, have mercy; according to thy abundant mercy which thou hast had upon the people of Nephi, have upon me, and my people" (vv. 39-41).

You asked if it is not the case that Lamoni corrects his language because now, instead of referring to God as the Great Spirit, he addresses him in prayer as "Lord." I see no "correction" here. The title Lord in no way implies any correction of or rejection of the title Great Spirit. He uses the title Lord, which he learned from Ammon, just as he learned the title God, but neither title contradicts or corrects the title Great Spirit.

My study of Alma 18 leads me to conclude that the description of God as the Great Spirit receives no correction from Ammon or anyone else anywhere in the passage or in the Book of Mormon. More broadly, this is just one piece of evidence that prior to the 1840s Joseph Smith conceived of God as spirit rather than as an exalted man of flesh. We have, for example, the description in Lectures on Faith 5 of the Father as a personage of Spirit. These pieces of evidence need to be considered in the larger context of everything that the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's earliest revelations say about the nature of God. What we find are statements that fit comfortably in a fairly traditional monotheistic world view. God has been God from all eternity. He is a being of spirit, albeit an anthropomorphic being (which was a departure from the orthodox view of God). He alone created the heavens and the earth and everything in them. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God. All of this evidence needs to be considered together in a diachronic (historical, chronologically sensitive) fashion, not shoehorned into Joseph's theology of 1842-44. If we handle the evidence in this fashion, the references to God as the Great Spirit in Alma 18 fit easily into the picture that emerges.

I would conclude by repeating the following paragraph that I wrote in an earlier post a couple of weeks back:

In any case, this issue fails to demonstrate any supposed lack of effort on my part to understand LDS beliefs correctly. My Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide explains quite clearly that the LDS Church teaches that God the Father has a physical body. The criticism here amounts to insisting that in order for me to try to represent LDS beliefs fairly, I must accede to LDS interpretations of the origins, historical significance, and original theological meanings of their sacred writings. In short, if I disagree, I am supposedly misrepresenting. That is not a cogent criticism.

[JDave]

Firstly, Paul's appeal to the Unkown God is analogous to the degree that he is tying true belief into incorrect belief. Unless you believe that the altar to the Unkown God was a correct belief, then this analogy holds. What arguments you make as to why one means one thing and the other means something else are not as important as realizing that you must make arguments to rationalize your position. "Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." could easily be seen as stating that Paul's God is symbolized correctly in that altar to the Unknown God. I understand that you must choose the interpretation that makes sense to you, but I see no effort on your part to understand that there are merits to more than just your interpretation of things.

"And now, when the king heard these words, he said unto them: Now I know that it is the Great Spirit; and he has come down at this time to preserve your lives, that I might not slay you as I did your brethren. Now this is the Great Spirit of whom our fathers have spoken. Now this was the tradition of Lamoni, which he had received from his father, that there was a Great Spirit. Notwithstanding they believed in a Great Spirit, they supposed that whatsoever they did was right; nevertheless, Lamoni began to fear exceedingly, with fear lest he had done wrong in slaying his servants" (Alma 18:4-5).

Now, the Book of Mormon does make it clear that Lamoni's people had some false traditions, so in that context one might suppose that their belief that God was a Spirit would be one of those false traditions. However, the clause, "Notwithstanding they believed in a Great Spirit," followed by the critical remark that they thought whatever they did was right, seems to imply that their belief in a Great Spirit was a good belief. The logic of the sentence is, "Even though they had this right, they had this other thing wrong."

Your explanation doesn't seem to be a clear exegesis of the text. This is the first mention of a "Great Spirit" in The Book of Mormon. Previous references to God used names such as Lord, Messiah, or God, and only one time is there an explanatory note -- when Jacob uses the name Christ and explains that an angel revealed the name to him. Here, however, the Lamanites are using the term Great Spirit and the author pauses the story to explain this irregular term for Deity, which isn't even found in the Bible. The author's parenthetical statement begins: "Now this was the tradition of Lamoni, which he had received from his father, that there was a Great Spirit."(v.5) Whereas Jacob explained how the term Christ should be added to the proper names of God, here it is stated that this is a tradition, and moreso that is of Lamanite origin. The use the indefinite 'a' Great Spirit only further removes this teaching from belief in 'the' one true God.

The following sentence does not in any way imply that the Lamanite tradition of a Great Spirit was correct. "Notwithstanding they believed in a Great Spirit" reads much more clearly as "Even though they believed in a deity", rather than "Even though they had a proper understanding of the Spirit-only nature of God". The full sentence would then be paraphrased as "Even though they believed in a deity, they supposed that whatsoever they did was right; nevertheless, Lamoni began to fear exceedingly, with fear lest he had done wrong in slaying his servants". This reading is much more in line with the previous sentence and context of the situation.

These verses in and of themselves provide a very reasonable cause to state that Great Spirit is not a Nephite term for God and that the author considered it merely a Lamanite tradition.

"Art thou that Great Spirit, who knows all things?" (v. 18).

As his belief that God knows all things was correct, it is possible that his belief that God was a Great Spirit was also correct

This possibility you speak of is not suitable for even a passing addition to your argument. There is no linkage and the possibility is as great as stating the following sentence is completely accurate: The sun revolves around the earth, which spins on its axis.

"And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God? And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth. And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yea. And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth? And he said: Yea, I believe that he created all things which are in the earth; but I do not know the heavens. And Ammon said unto him: The heavens is a place where God dwells and all his holy angels" (vv. 24-30).

Lamoni says he doesn't know what the word "God" means and Ammon explains that by God he means the Great Spirit.

Of particular interest here is verse 18. Lamoni has already asked Ammon if he is the Great Spirit. Yet when Ammon begins to preach to him he asks "Believest thou that there is a God?" He doesn't simply adopt the term Great Spirit. He only uses it when Lamoni doesn't understand a proper term for Ammon's deity. And Ammon explains that by Great Spirit he means God -- not the other way around. It would be ridiculous that state that when Paul was speaking of God he meant the Unkown God depicted by the altar. I agree that it is a rhetorical device to move from the Unknown God of the altar to Paul's God. Grant Ammon that same leeway.

Part of the evidence to be considered in deciding if the description of God as "the Great Spirit" is to be taken as accepted by Ammon is to see what else Ammon affirms about God and about man's relationship with God. What we find is that God knows all things, that he created all things in the heavens and on the earth, and that he created man in the beginning after his image. All of these affirmations fit very comfortably in the traditional monotheistic world view of one God who is Spirit

This isn't evidence. This is the same as your argument above that if Lamoni was right about one thing, he could have been right about the other. This requires reading a certain understanding into the text.

The very text that reveals this understanding also reveals that God was not a man -- yet:

"And because he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth" (Mos. 7:27).

According to this text, man was made to look like God in some way, and God was later to come down and take on the image of man, taking on flesh and blood. This clearly means that God had not already been a being of flesh, but was going to take on flesh when he came as a flesh and blood mortal.

If we assume some coherence in these passages, as I think we should, then in Alma 18 the God whom Ammon calls the Great Spirit is Christ, who was at the time not a being of flesh but rather one of spirit.

Why should you assume coherence with what was described as a Lamanite tradition? Such coherence would only be possible after establishing that the Great Spirit is a proper Nephite term for God, not as an assumption to help prove that very point.

"But this is not all; for he expounded unto them the plan of redemption, which was prepared from the foundation of the world; and he also made known unto them concerning the coming of Christ, and all the works of the Lord did he make known unto them. And it came to pass that after he had said all these things, and expounded them to the king, that the king believed all his words. And he began to cry unto the Lord, saying: O Lord, have mercy; according to thy abundant mercy which thou hast had upon the people of Nephi, have upon me, and my people" (vv. 39-41).

You asked if it is not the case that Lamoni corrects his language because now, instead of referring to God as the Great Spirit, he addresses him in prayer as "Lord." I see no "correction" here. The title Lord in no way implies any correction of or rejection of the title Great Spirit. He uses the title Lord, which he learned from Ammon, just as he learned the title God, but neither title contradicts or corrects the title Great Spirit.

I agree that Lord does not necessarily contradict the title Great Spirit. That is not the point though. And it is significant that Lamoni never again uses the term Great Spirit. Having preambled the whole discussion with an explanatory note that "Great Spirit" was a Lamanite tradition, followed with an abrupt halt of that term after conversion, is indeed a very reasonable argument that Great Spirit was not a title that the Nephite prophets ever used and thus it carries no meaning to them other than a Lamanite term for deity.

More broadly, this is just one piece of evidence that prior to the 1840s Joseph Smith conceived of God as spirit rather than as an exalted man of flesh. We have, for example, ... If we handle the evidence in this fashion, the references to God as the Great Spirit in Alma 18 fit easily into the picture that emerges.

You are claiming that the Book of Mormon teaches that God the Father is a Spirit. That claim cannot be bolstered with writings outside the book. How can you claim any attempt at exegesis otherwise?

In any case, this issue fails to demonstrate any supposed lack of effort on my part to understand LDS beliefs correctly.

Your efforts to see past clear explanations on this and any other issues are an issue or the issue. Distinguishing between current beliefs and earlier beliefs is fine. Your seeming inability to accept that Ammon and Aaron could have used "Great Spirit" as a building block to move on to more correct teachings is disconcerting. Edited February 3, 2012 by JDave

[Rob Bowman]

Dave,

Thanks for your reply.

I agree that "Great Spirit" is presented in the narrative as a Lamanite term for deity, not a Nephite term. It is presented as a generic term reflecting a lack of direct knowledge of God. In that respect it is similar (not identical) to the situation with the altar in Acts 17. I agree also that in the narrative Ammon uses the Lamanite term to communicate his belief in terms Lamoni could understand. Once Lamoni accepts the specific faith of Ammon, he begins speaking about God in Nephite terms. None of this is in issue.

Lamoni affirmed three things about the deity: that he was a Great Spirit, that he was the creator of all things on earth, and that he knew all things. Ammon disputes none of these affirmations. The Book of Mormon never denies any of these statements. Elsewhere we find clear statements that Christ is the God who made all things and that he had not yet taken a body of flesh but would do so in the future. These statements identifying Christ as the God of creation are a significant part of my argument that you didn't engage. As I pointed out, other Mormons in this thread insisted on this point. But if Christ is the creator God of whom Ammon spoke, then you must agree that the God in question was at the time a being of spirit. Put all these things together and the conclusion that the Book of Mormon presents God as a being of spirit seems hard to overturn. When one considers that Joseph Smith also taught in the years following that God the Father was a being of spirit, introducing the claim that the Father was a personage of flesh and bone only in the 1840s, the argument would seem rock solid.

Is it possible the above line of reasoning is mistaken? I suppose. Human reasoning is fallible, yours and mine included. The question I ask you again is this: Can you see your way to acknowledging that even if you think my interpretation to be mistaken I have made a good-faith effort to understand LDS doctrine? Is it so difficult to admit that an outsider might be sincerely trying to be accurate in what he says about your doctrines and texts?

Edited February 3, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[CV75]

Is it so difficult to admit that an outsider might be sincerely trying to be accurate in what he says about your doctrines and texts?

Personal prejudices affect one’s self-assessment of how sincere he is in attempting to be accurate, and also of his perception of accuracy in what he says about another’s doctrines and texts.

[Vance]

Lamoni affirmed three things about the deity: that he was a Great Spirit, that he was the creator of all things on earth, and that he knew all things. Ammon disputes none of these affirmations. The Book of Mormon never denies any of these statements. Elsewhere we find clear statements that Christ is the God who made all things and that he had not yet taken a body of flesh but would do so in the future. These statements identifying Christ as the God of creation are a significant part of my argument that you didn't engage. As I pointed out, other Mormons in this thread insisted on this point. But if Christ is the creator God of whom Ammon spoke, then you must agree that the God in question was at the time a being of spirit. Put all these things together and the conclusion that the Book of Mormon presents God as a being of spirit seems hard to overturn.

Something just doesn't match up here.

From the OP,

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

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

One of these things is not like the other.

Shifting goal posts me thinks.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

The discrepancy you perceive is resolved once one takes into account the Book of Mormon's assertions that Christ is the Father and the Son and that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

You wrote:

Personal prejudices affect one’s self-assessment of how sincere he is in attempting to be accurate, and also of his perception of accuracy in what he says about another’s doctrines and texts.

Could be. Personal prejudices can also affect one’s assessment of the sincerity of those with whom one disagrees. Therefore, the proper stance is to give the benefit of the doubt where there is at least some evidence of a good-faith effort to see past one's personal prejudices. I should give my Mormon critics that benefit of the doubt, and they should accord me the same benefit of the doubt, as long as the other shows some effort to engage the evidence presented by the other side. It isn't necessary for you to agree with me or for me to agree with you for us to acknowledge each other as sincere. However, if one of us constantly dismisses the other's arguments by resort to ad hominem attacks, guilt by association, and other fallacious and offensive tactics, the one resorting to such tactics is demonstrably not making such a good-faith effort.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Dupe.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That's a convenient way of getting out of responding to Post 31.

In case anyone has forgotten what it said, here it is again:

That's a Grahamism. Actually it was Lamoni who held that belief:

And Lamoni who introduced the concept into the discussion:

Then Ammon tried to teach Lamoni true doctrine:

IOW, Ammon did what any good missionary would do: he taught Lamoni in terms that he was familiar with so there was a starting point for him to begin to understand something.

Just as Aaron subsequently teaches Lamoni's father in the terms in which he is familiar.

However, after the Lamanites have become converted, they adopt a new religious vocabulary appropriate to their new beliefs:

IOW, after the missionaries have taught the Lamanites effectively, the "Great Spirit" disappears, to be replaced by The Lord.

No. It really doesn't.

Can you play upon this flute? 'Tis as easy...

Regards,

Pahoran

Hmmm , these line of arguments seem familiar. Oh yeah the BoA. Graham is the only one that understands the "context" and he is here to enlighten us. The only problem is that I am quit familiar with the BoM and what it teaches and Grahams analysis is simply wrong. How does he put it? You have effectively destroyed his arguments.

[JDave]

I agree that "Great Spirit" is presented in the narrative as a Lamanite term for deity, not a Nephite term. It is presented as a generic term reflecting a lack of direct knowledge of God. In that respect it is similar (not identical) to the situation with the altar in Acts 17. I agree also that in the narrative Ammon uses the Lamanite term to communicate his belief in terms Lamoni could understand. Once Lamoni accepts the specific faith of Ammon, he begins speaking about God in Nephite terms. None of this is in issue.

It is if the book makes special note, pausing the narration, to tell readers that "Great Spirit" is a Lamanite tradition. The author is trying to distance themselves from that term for deity. If it was a perfectly legitimate term for God, then why the distancing? You don't need to respond to the points where I simply pointed out that you weren't introducing evidence, but this is a pretty important point I addressed above and didn't see any response to.

Lamoni affirmed three things about the deity: that he was a Great Spirit, that he was the creator of all things on earth, and that he knew all things. Ammon disputes none of these affirmations. The Book of Mormon never denies any of these statements.

That is true. There is no explicit renunciation of this belief. It is highlighted as a Lamanite tradition, as opposed to a Nephite teaching. It is never actually taught by a Nephite prophet. And the term is unique to this exchange in Alma 18-22.

Why should the authors of the Book of Mormon specifically dispute this belief already highlighted as something other than Nephite teachings? Consider a separate example in the Book of Mormon that shows apostate beliefs. In Alma 31 we are given the prayer of the apostate Zoramites. The prayer contains false teachings, but those teachings are not specifically rebutted. It is taken for granted that nothing in the Zoramite prayer should necessarily be construed as true doctrine. The Zoramites state that God will always be Spirit. This is not disputed by the book author. Yet could you really claim that the Book of Mormon teaches us that God will always be Spirit? Silence does not indicate approval, nor does the silence provide any evidence for your claim.

Elsewhere we find clear statements that Christ is the God who made all things and that he had not yet taken a body of flesh but would do so in the future. These statements identifying Christ as the God of creation are a significant part of my argument that you didn't engage.

What is there to engage? The term Great Spirit is not adopted as a method to teach true doctrine, but it is temporarily borrowed as a segue to then move on to true doctrine. Christ may or may not have been in Ammon's mind as the creator God, but either way it is more than straining to claim that "Great Spirit" is used as a teaching point for correct doctrine. The usage of "Great Spirit" as anything other than a generic, apostate, title for deity is simply not found in the text.

When one considers that Joseph Smith also taught in the years following that God the Father was a being of spirit, introducing the claim that the Father was a personage of flesh and bone only in the 1840s, the argument would seem rock solid.

This is not exegesis.

Is it possible the above line of reasoning is mistaken? I suppose. Human reasoning is fallible, yours and mine included. The question I ask you again is this: Can you see your way to acknowledging that even if you think my interpretation to be mistaken I have made a good-faith effort to understand LDS doctrine? Is it so difficult to admit that an outsider might be sincerely trying to be accurate in what he says about your doctrines and texts?

It is possible. I have no way of judging whether you have made a good-faith effort. Using other sources to paint an interpretation rather than doing an exegesis makes me wonder. Not wonder about your sincerity, but how much your pre-conceived notions affect your analysis. The arguments in your above two posts to me boil down to "There is no denial that God is a Spirit, and I have other sources that lead me to believe that lack of denial is tantamount to teaching that God the Father is a Spirit." Edited February 3, 2012 by JDave

[wenglund]

May I just say again:

I don't feel it necessary to claim that the Book of Mormon is consistently modalist from beginning to end. I think rather that its theology is a rude mixture of modalist and trinitarian statements.

Depending upon who is doing the interpreting, the same, and more (binitarianism, henotheism, strict monotheism, etc.) can be said of the Bible. It can also be said of the early church fathers. I happen to interpret a lot of what Rob says as modalistics.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

Could be. Personal prejudices can also affect one’s assessment of the sincerity of those with whom one disagrees. Therefore, the proper stance is to give the benefit of the doubt where there is at least some evidence of a good-faith effort to see past one's personal prejudices. I should give my Mormon critics that benefit of the doubt, and they should accord me the same benefit of the doubt, as long as the other shows some effort to engage the evidence presented by the other side. It isn't necessary for you to agree with me or for me to agree with you for us to acknowledge each other as sincere. However, if one of us constantly dismisses the other's arguments by resort to ad hominem attacks, guilt by association, and other fallacious and offensive tactics, the one resorting to such tactics is demonstrably not making such a good-faith effort.

Because of personal prejudices, ad hominem attacks, defenses and pleas for leniency of course should each be avoided in discussions like these.

I think everyone possesses a “non-moral” sincerity in something, and that sincerity (as well as accuracy) only qualifies as good faith when it is applied in a morally good manner. The fruits, or evidence of one’s sincerity and accuracy will support whether his sincerity and accuracy are used for morally good purposes, no matter how great or how little a benefit of a doubt may have been extended him. And of course, each person is accountable for his own personal prejudice and what he does with it with regards to assessing his own and others' sincerity and accuracy, and the sincerity and accuracy with which he represents another's view (and doctrines. texts, etc.).

When the fruits are abundant, they speak louder about good faith than any other point made or benefit extended about the sincerity, reasonableness or accuracy behind the bringing forth of the fruit.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

So, do you have an opinion you wish to share regarding the challenge question that is the focus of this thread?

Because of personal prejudices, ad hominem attacks, defenses and pleas for leniency of course should each be avoided in discussions like these.

I think everyone possesses a “non-moral” sincerity in something, and that sincerity (as well as accuracy) only qualifies as good faith when it is applied in a morally good manner. The fruits, or evidence of one’s sincerity and accuracy will support whether his sincerity and accuracy are used for morally good purposes, no matter how great or how little a benefit of a doubt may have been extended him. And of course, each person is accountable for his own personal prejudice and what he does with it with regards to assessing his own and others' sincerity and accuracy, and the sincerity and accuracy with which he represents another's view (and doctrines. texts, etc.).

When the fruits are abundant, they speak louder about good faith than any other point made or benefit extended about the sincerity, reasonableness or accuracy behind the bringing forth of the fruit.