Institute for Religious Research Study Guide Challenge

[Loran Blood]

Xander, on 15 January 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:

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:

As you can see, there is no indication that Ammon disagreed with Lamoni's numerous references to the Great Spirit = God, and in fact he clearly agrees with him in verse 28. I think Bowman's overall point is that Joseph Smith's theology changed over time, which is really an indisputable fact.

Well, really very sloppy, Kevin. You're quite capable of thinking beyond this level on tendentious simplicity, but you just refuse to do so. At the very best, all the above appears to indicate, given that Ammon was teaching someone who had no understanding of the gospel whatsoever, but did have a vague, nebulous idea of some kind of overarching authority or being in the universe, is that Ammon was attempting here to appraoch Lamoni on his level, at the level of understanding and knowledge he had at that time, by saying that the "great spirit" he believed in was the God that Ammon was teaching him of. He did this before going into any detail about the true nature and characteristics of this God, to allow Lamoni space to absorb the basic idea of a personal God and show him, I think, that he already was, to some basic extent, on the "right track."

You also seem to be rather confused regarding the usage of the term "spirit" (whch evengelicals such as Bowman always take in the ancient Hellenistic sense of an incorporeal metaphysical essense wholly distinct and separate from any kind of matter or form before projecting it into the minds of the NT authors). In LDS theology, this is not a problem at all. God is a "great spirit." so is Jesus Christ. Both also have physical bodies and are distinct personages. All of us are also spirits. All of us also have bodies. All "spirit" is also a form, or manifestation, of a kind of matter. All spirit is matter, and all matter exists at various levels of refinement or purity. "Spirit" is a term used to describe a specific form, or forms, of matter, and matter expresses itself at different levels or degrees of manifestation.

There is no inconsistency or contradiction here whatever, and the terrific doctrinal and philosophical problems of importing ancient Alexandrian metaphysics into Christain doctrine is avoided.

Quote

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

That was easy.

Whats easy here is simply to point out the seroius problems involved in your simplistic analysis of the text in question and your hazy understanding of the importance of being logically rigorous in your weighing of the logical and semantic content and possible nuance of a text in such a case as this. Paul used precisely the same rhetorical approach when dealing with his Roman audience in Acts 17:23:

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, To the Unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

So, let's see, according to both you and Rob Bowman, Paul actcually believed that the Unknown God was...the Unknown God. He didn't know this was Jesus Christ, and that little detail was added later by a redactor, or by Paul himself, as his theology matured.

Or, it just might be that in both cases, Paul and Ammon were using a vague, nebulous concept of God (that a supreme being exists, and little more, just at the outset) in order to "break the ice" for their audience so that they might listen with relatively open minds to more of his teaching and perhaps be fired with further interest. Its a rhetorical approach to opening a door for some meeting of the minds with people with literally no understanding of the gospel.

Nothing more.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Loran Blood

[wenglund]

I can only think of one Bible text that someone might plausibly interpret as modalistic, Isaiah 9:6, and then only if the interpreter was unfamiliar with the Hebrew text.

You are entitled to your opinion. Others obviously reasonably disagree.

Well, I wouldn't expect you to view my interpretations as inspired. I don't even make that claim. Nor am I concerned about being edifying; my concern is to get at the truth.

That is a noble goal. However, in non-definative matters of faith (which we are awash in during mortality), there is unavoidably a broad latitude as to what may reasonably be considered as the truth, and this will remain the case until the veil in the temple of all our minds is wrent and we no longer see as if through a glass darkly, but face to face.

As for depth, so far no one has even tried to offer a rebuttal to my whole argument. Instead people have been picking at one small piece of it and in several instances impugning my motives in the bargain.

I don't wish to rebut your argument. Like I said, your argument seems reasonable, particularly if one accepts all your premises.

Instead, I will simply point out that there may be a preferrable interpretation.

I would spell it out, but I don't view it as my place to do so. Rather, I view it as the purview of the Holy Spirit--which is how I came by the interpretation.

As I see it, the Book of Mormon scriptures in question (the one's you view as modalistic) contains what I view as upper-level enlightenments, or mysteries, which I am not sure are to be shared publically and freely until the receiving parties are sufficiently open and prepared to receive them (having eyes to see and ears to hear, as it were). I suspect that as long as various parites hold to certain beliefs, they will be blinded to the mysteries--and for good reason.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 6, 2012 by wenglund

[Calm]

That's an excellent point.

But if you link to something that shows what we actually believe, you can't build a strawman

Honestly, I don't think there is any need to build strawmen of LDS beliefs. The differences in some of our fundamental beliefs are significant enough that if one does not accept the LDS version as truth, the rest of our belief system can be discounted as well, imo. For example, our belief in the nature of God and Man being of the Family of God and thus our rejection of the unbridgeable gap between Creator and creature in contrast with traditional Christian thought. If we are wrong in this, it is not only blasphemy, but all else fails. I do not understand why so many waste so much effort in strawman construction....unless for some reason they feel their own position is too weak to challenge LDS belief.

[Loran Blood]

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

I just realized that Kevin Graham may actually have never done any extensive reading of the Book of Mormon at all, either while a member of since. This may also be true of the other standard works, and may explain obvious gaffs such as the conflating of the beliefs of Lamoni with those of Ammon when he could have easily referenced the very same verses you posted above. A quick scan of the chapter would have been sufficient.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

Yes, I read your rhetoric, but it doesn't change the simple fact that Bernard was wrong. He claimed it was the Lamanites who were referring to their own "heretical" doctrines by speaking to the Nephites. I showed that the Nephites addressed the Lamanites and agreed with them. In both cases I showed the heretics were being addressed and there is no indication anywhere in the text that Ammon believed this was a "heretical" doctrine.

As usual, and in contradistinction to your own rhetoric, you showed precisely and exactly nothing of the kind. Pahoran finished you off in one post, as any Blazer B could have done with a decent understanding of the same verses of scripture. Let's go over it again, Kevin, and see if we can get past a little bit of freshman logic:

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;

Get it, Kevin? Are we on the same sheet of music now? These were the traditions of the Lamonite culture being confronted and negotiated by a Nephite missionary. It was not the tradition taught among the Nephites. How do we know this? Well, we read the Book of Mormon, and in it we see:

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?

Lamoni doesn't understand what the concept "God" means. So what does Ammon do? He proceeds, given the utter vagueness and fuzziness of the concept of a "great spirit," but given that the concept of a "great spirit," as nebulous and unformed as it may be (or perhaps for this reason) is at least an open door; at least an assent to the concept of a supreme intelligence and authority in the universe (the "unknown god" of the Romans), Ammon approaches Lamoni just as Paul approached the Romans. "To the Great Spirit. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

Next, of course, Ammon proceeds to flesh out the concept - to teach Lamoni about the actual character and attibutes of this unknown great spirit:

And he said: Yea, I believe that he created all things which are in the earth; but I do not know the heavens.

And king Lamoni said: Is it above the earth?

And king Lamoni said: I believe all these things which thou hast spoken. Art thou sent from God?

And a portion of that Spirit dwelleth in me, which giveth me knowledge, and also power according to my faith and desires which are in God.

Now when Ammon had said these words, he began at the creation of the world, and also the creation of Adam, and told him all the things concerning the fall of man, and rehearsed and laid before him the records and the holy scriptures of the people, which had been spoken by the prophets, even down to the time that their father, Lehi, left Jerusalem.

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.

You "point out" no such thing, you merely asserted it. The text says nothing about a God with a body, and I think that was the primary point Bowman was trying to make.

Kevin, try reading the Book of Mormon first:

Ammon said unto him: I am a man; and man in the beginning was created after the image of God (Alma 18:34)...

Edit: Incidentally, I was banned from viewing the thread where I demonstrated Bernard's hypocrisy for complaining about anti-Mormon lying. But that was to be expected here. It must be fun winning these debates by muzzling the only opposing view.

And you should probably be banned from this thread as well, as that text in boldface is just a small example of the venom you've expressed here from yalmost your very first post in the thread:

...Bernard's seless rant against Bowman for supposedly misrepresenting the Book of Mormon, ultimately proves embarrassing. Though I don't expect fellow apologists to spend much time soaking this in.

ROFL! If that is true, then why is Bernard bending over backwards trying to make it a "heretical" doctrine? Now we're hearing two different things from you guys. Why not just approach this verse with the same apologetic riff raff that is used to explain away the biblical verses that refer to God as a spirit? Bernard didn't think this through at all and now he has been exposed for all the things he tried to throw upon Bowman.

This is really one hilarious example of how group think mixed with apologetic zeal leads to its own form of bigotry.

Well, Kevin appears to have fled the scene of battle in any case, and all well and good for that.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

I can only think of one Bible text that someone might plausibly interpret as modalistic, Isaiah 9:6, and then only if the interpreter was unfamiliar with the Hebrew text.

There is no philosophcal escape from some form, or sense, of modalism for the Christian who takes the Nicene Creed, or any similar concept, seriously. The idea that the personages of the Trinity are different aspects, modes, or in some sense, projections of the single divine essense is in any logically or conceptually substantive sense different than claiming that these beings are three distinct "persons" within a single, metaphysical divine entity (i.e., three aspects or personae within the unitary ontological node) is an exercise in philosophical futility attempting to extract relevent meaning from a distinction without appreciable difference.

In what manner is being a ray or emanation from a single ontological entity substantively different than being a "person" within a single, ontologically unified entity in which these "persons" are ontologicaly unitary (homoousios) but yet manifest themselves as different persons (manifestations of the single entity holding different names, name titles, and performing different functions)? If Jesus isn't a mode, projection, or metaphysical extension of the Trinity, then it isn't at all clear how calling him a person unravels the philosophcal and theological problems posed by the modal interpretation. How much of the differnce between modalists and traditional Trinitarians is semantic?

Why can't a mode be also a "person," and why can't a "person" within the unitary Trinity also be thought of as an extension or manifested projection of the Trinity having a certain funtion and, in some cases, phyiscal form? There is no possible escape from the Trinitarian implication that, in some absolute metaphysical sense, the Father is Son, the Son is the Father, The Father and the Son are the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is, ontologically, the Father and the Son. The persons are not metaphysically distinct from the Trinity, but at the same time these "persons" manifest themselves under different names and having different divine responsibilities, appearing to have some kind of distiction from the metaphysical mass, but yet, it is claimed, really not having such a distinction (except, of course, when they do).

Comments?

Edited February 6, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Rob Bowman]

Loran,

You wrote:

Well, Kevin appears to have fled the scene of battle in any case, and all well and good for that.

You might try reading through the whole thread before making comments like this one. Kevin was kicked out of the thread.

[wenglund]

Why can't a mode be also a "person,"

I believe the two terms, in this case, may reasonably viewed by some as synonymous.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

Loran,

You wrote:

There is no philosophcal escape from some form, or sense, of modalism for the Christian who takes the Nicene Creed, or any similar concept, seriously.

I take it that you say this after seriously wrestling with the writings of orthodox Christian theologians and philosophers who have discussed this issue. Could you cite a couple of these Trinitarians whose treatments of the issue you have studied and found wanting?

The idea that the personages of the Trinity are different aspects, modes, or in some sense, projections of the single divine essense is in any logically or conceptually substantive sense different than claiming that these beings are three distinct "persons" within a single, metaphysical divine entity (i.e., three aspects or personae within the unitary ontological node) is an exercise in philosophical futility attempting to extract relevent meaning from a distinction without appreciable difference.

I see an assertion here, not an explanation for why this distinction has no relevant meaning or appreciable difference.

In what manner is being a ray or emanation from a single ontological entity substantively different than being a "person" within a single, ontologically unified entity in which these "persons" are ontologicaly unitary (homoousios) but yet manifest themselves as different persons (manifestations of the single entity holding different names, name titles, and performing different functions)? If Jesus isn't a mode, projection, or metaphysical extension of the Trinity, then it isn't at all clear how calling him a person unravels the philosophcal and theological problems posed by the modal interpretation. How much of the differnce between modalists and traditional Trinitarians is semantic?

Why can't a mode be also a "person," and why can't a "person" within the unitary Trinity also be thought of as an extension or manifested projection of the Trinity having a certain funtion and, in some cases, phyiscal form?

A lot of questions, or perhaps the same question asked in several different ways. Are you claiming that Trinitarians have never addressed this question, or are you claiming that their answers are not satisfactory?

There is no possible escape from the Trinitarian implication that, in some absolute metaphysical sense, the Father is Son, the Son is the Father, The Father and the Son are the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is, ontologically, the Father and the Son.

Yet the doctrine of the Trinity asserts otherwise. Are you claiming we are contradicting ourselves? How is this conclusion an implication of the doctrine of the Trinity if the doctrine of the Trinity asserts to the contrary that the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and so forth?

The persons are not metaphysically distinct from the Trinity, but at the same time these "persons" manifest themselves under different names and having different divine responsibilities, appearing to have some kind of distiction from the metaphysical mass, but yet, it is claimed, really not having such a distinction (except, of course, when they do).

Comments?

Well, Loran, you've asserted strongly that Trinitarianism amounts to modalism and asked how it could be otherwise, but you haven't indicated any awareness of why Trinitarians (and modalists, for that matter) disagree with you. Do you really think the argument between Trinitarians and Oneness Pentecostals, for example, is merely semantics?

The doctrine of the Trinity differs from modalism in several significant ways.

First, modalism generally denies the preexistence of the Son distinct from the Father. They maintain that the Son came into existence in the Incarnation. Prior to the conception and birth of Jesus, on this view, God was simply God; through the conception and birth of Jesus, God became Father and Son (Father in reference to his deity, Son in reference to his humanity). The Holy Spirit is typically viewed as God in his immanence, contrasting with God in his transcendence (now known as the Father). In contrast to this typical modalist theology, Trinitarianism maintains that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have always existed simultaneously and as distinct from eternity.

Another significant difference is that modalism typically denies the deity of the Son. Again, as stated above, the Son is usually understood in modalism as the humanity or flesh of Jesus Christ, as opposed to the deity of Christ which is identified as the Father. Trinitarianism, on the other hand, regards the Son as God.

A third difference is that modalism must either deny relationship between the Father and the Son or it must deny that Jesus really is God after all. That is, if the Father and the Son are two different aspects of Jesus Christ, then it makes no sense for the Son to talk to the Father, to love the Father, to obey the Father, and for the Father to love the Son, talk to the Son, send the Son, and so forth. To get around this, modalists sometimes retreat into the idea that Jesus is not himself God but is a man in whom God dwelled. That really shades off into another heresy called dynamic monarchianism, though these categories can get blurred. In contrast to such theories, Trinitarianism maintains that the Father and the Son eternally relate to one another personally: they love each other, know each other, respect each other, and commune with each other. In the Incarnation, the Father sends the Son, the Son comes on behalf of the Father and comes to obey the Father. The Son and the Father speak to each other, honor each other, and glorify each other. The relationship is real, not a sham, as modalism implies.

A fourth difference is that modalism must deny any personal relationship between the Father and the Holy Spirit, since they are simply God in his transcendence and immanence. Of course, Trinitarianism affirms a real personal relationship between these two divine persons. The Holy Spirit was sent by the Father and the Son; he came to glorify the Son and bring us into relationship with the Father through the Son.

These differences don't exhaust the issue, but they should be enough to show that the differences are not merely semantic.

[wenglund]

These differences don't exhaust the issue, but they should be enough to show that the differences are not merely semantic.

I don't know if they are enough to show an ontological difference between "person" and "mode."

Whatever the case, I appreciate you drawing the distictions.

However, given what you have said about modalism, could you point to where, in the Book of Mormon passages you view as modalistic, they: 1) denied the preexistence of the Son distinct from the Father; 2) denied the deity of Christ; 3) either deny the relationship between the Father and the Son or deny that Jesus really is God after all; and 4) deny any personal relationship between the Father and the Holy Spirit?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LifeOnaPlate]

LOAP,

Your unflattering opinion of me is noted, but it is irrelevant to this thread except as an illustration of the prejudice the Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide challenge attempts to overcome.

No, it's an illustration that your approach is utterly inadequate in comparison to much better theologians and scholars.

I have been professionally involved in biblical scholarship, theology, and apologetics for 28 years. I have written a dozen books, none of which is about Mormonism, and nearly 60 essays and periodical articles. I have taught undergraduate and graduate courses at secular and evangelical colleges and universities; the subjects of these courses have been in biblical studies, theology, philosophy, world religions, and apologetics.

I've had some pretty poor professors in my day, and some pretty fantastic ones. I try to judge them by their fruits. Just calling yourself a tree doesn't mean what you bear is very good quality. Seeing your exchange on this thread about the "Great Spirit" thing is ample evidence of your narrowing (in the pejorative sense) approach.

Now that I work for IRR, you turn the same anti-anti-Mormon prejudice you have toward all counter-cult ministries toward me.

You're getting paid for this?

That is hardly surprising. If you won't actually engage the work I do and give it a fair shake, there's nothing I can do to help you see past your animus.

Here's something you can do: read Webb and go and do thou likewise. Why do you think I feel comfy praising Webb and criticizing you? (Webb recognizes multiple readings and multiple LDS perspectives, he identifies areas he appreciates in addition to areas he strongly counters. He also recognizes differing Christian approaches with a solid grasp of history and theology and interacts with them as well. These are only a few examples. Do you see the difference?)

But I'll simply direct the challenge to you personally: Read through the whole Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide and see whether in your opinion the work as a whole makes a reasonably good-faith effort to be fair and accurate in its treatment of Mormon beliefs. I'll even email you a copy of the entire work in one PDF document to make your reading of it simpler. That offer goes for anyone else here as well.

I already explained why I have no interest in assisting you (besides the additional fact that I'm busy with school myself). In this discussion you've rejected most assistance, and in the meantime you can pretend to better objectivity because you have solicited the advice of Mormons. Maybe you should seriously ask yourself why a guy like me who actually loves inter-faith dialog--not mere back-slapping glossing over of differences, but rigorous exchange--demonstrates some contempt for your approach. Why do you think that is the case, Mr. Bowman?

I'll throw you one bone. Here's a tip: Why not change your whole approach to include multiple interpretations and perspectives? It baffles me that you, as a claimed academic, have failed to consider this approach. [Probable reason: because you're preaching (and getting paid for it?), not teaching or seeking to understand Mormonism.]

Edited February 6, 2012 by LifeOnaPlate

[Vance]

By comparison, Bowman is, essentially, a hack trying to pigeon-hole LDS belief and scripture. The IRR is a proselyting group trying to cover their unacademic tracks with the veneer of scholarship. He pretends to seek correction from Mormons, and while he generally disregards the suggestions this allows him to tell people "I've worked together with Mormons on this, I've asked for corrections, so you know this stuff is solid." Any "assistance" rendered to Bowman is assistance for him to try and destroy any faith in the claims of the LDS Church. Here are some words I use to describe one over the other:

That nails it.

[Anijen]

LOAP

Very fine answer, I do not think it will even dent Bowmans methodology he sees one interpretation and his is right and he does not even consider others. I see no sign of him even considering any others point of view. His polling of LDS was just a lure for his book so he can say "I have questioned many LDS and here is their answers." Of course he gleaned only the ones that prove his point and ignored all others just as he does on these boards.

[Vance]

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.

I am really not surprised that Bowman would resort to this red herring. His total lack of understanding of this verse is apparent.

LOL!!!!

[Vance]

I don't accept preconceived notions about Mormonism.

LOL!!!!!

Oh, Bowman, you kill me.

I have read far more extensively in pro-Mormon apologetic literature than I have the literature critical of Mormonism.

Irrelevant, even if true.

No clear error of substance on the IRR website has yet been presented, as far as I am concerned.

Of course not. LOL!!

And you wouldn't recognize/admit it if one landed on you and crushed you to death. LOL!!!!

[cdowis]

I guess I am puzzled by this thread.

As I remember, Rob has stated that he has read the BOM and received an answer from God that it is false.. He has shown no inclination to understand the doctrines it teaches, and why should he, since its origin is either from man or from the devil and there is no reason to take it seriously.

Having refuted the apologists in this thread and elsewhere, he has attained expert status on the Mormon cult.

With the increasing interest in Mormonism, this should be a great boost to his career as the "Refuter of the Mormons", recognized as a real champion of Christianity.

Edited February 6, 2012 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Can you believe it! Most of those apologists don't even know Greek or Hebrew, much less published anything.

Edited February 6, 2012 by cdowis

[wenglund]

It has taken me awhile, but I have finally figured out that it doesn't work to expect a fundamentalist dogmatist to change his spots. Instead, I accept Rob for who and what he is, and try to interact with him in whatever productive way is possible--which, admittedly, is quite limited. I do so, not only because as a child of God he is deserving of it, but also because there is an outside chance that some slight change-agent insight might slip through his formidable defenses. Then, again, I am hopelessly optomistic at times.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vance]

As I remember, Rob has stated that he has read the BOM and received an answer from God that it is false..

THAT is the impression he likes to leave, but he does it without ACTUALLY admitting/claiming to having read the whole thing.

[cdowis]

Wade,

You may be right, but I fear that when he published the temple rites, he reached the tipping point. He is now totally commited to his reputation and career.

Edited February 6, 2012 by cdowis

[JDave]

You have ignored quite a bit of additional contrary evidence that I presented:

(1) the identification of this "God" whom Ammon equated with the Great Spirit as the creator of all things in heaven and earth, elsewhere identified as Christ

(2) the Book of Mormon statements asserting that Christ is both the Father and the Son

(3) the Book of Mormon statements asserting that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God

(4) the Book of Mormon statements asserting that Christ was going in the future to take on a body of flesh, presupposing that at the time he did not yet have such a body

(5) the overall theistic understanding of the divine being presented throughout the Book of Mormon, especially that he is God from eternity past to eternity future, the sole creator of everything in heaven and on earth, a view of God normally and logically understood to entail that God is spirit, not flesh

(6) the fact that Joseph Smith, the supposed inspired translator of the Book of Mormon, for more than a dozen years after translating it continued to teach that God the Father was a being of spirit, not of flesh

I didn't take this seriously (and still don't) because it is basically one point of evidence that depends on all six items above. There is reasonable doubt on several of them, especially items #2 and #5. But I will grant that it is a point of evidence and I should have included it. One point, mind you, not six.

So you see, Dave, I didn't feel it worth responding because you were the one who was continuing to ignore the evidence I presented. I tried to be charitable and end the discussion without rubbing your nose in it, but you wouldn't hear of it. So rub it in, I will.

I think this is one point where I just don't see what you see. But I have included it. My nose is dirty.

Moving on to your alleged counterevidence:

Already answered. ... Basically the same point; already answered. ... Again, basically the same point; already answered.

Already answered.

You did not dismiss the evidence or show how it shouldn't even be considered. You simply found a way to justify and rationalize your position in spite of the evidence. But don't pretend the evidence is not still there to weigh in the balance.

This is a new argument from you, so that is why I had not answered it before. How this distinction is counterevidence to the conclusion that God himself was a person of spirit, you have not explained.

This is another new argument from you. I don't see what you claim to see in verse 7 or in anything else in the passage. Verse 7 does not mention the Great Spirit. In verse 9, the king asks Aaron if God is the Great Spirit, and in verse 10 Aaron says yes.

I know! As I read through the chapter to document everything I found new things! Even better I was reading the chapter again while traveling this weekend and found the coup de grâce (see below).

Regarding the new points above, distinguishing between God and "his Holy Spirit" merely indicates that there may be a Spirit-only aspect of the Godhead distinct from God the Father. The second point is pretty weak, simply that the king had allowed Amalekite worship but never equated that with his deity. These verses aren't meant to seal the argument. None of them, yet, can do that. But neither can any of the verses you have. They should be considered as a whole, not as whether you can justify your position against what I have cited.

As I have shown in this post, you did not weigh the evidence; you stacked it. That is, you ignored almost all of the evidence I presented and treated each textual citation supporting the same alleged counterevidence as separate evidence.

Just because the odds are stacked against you doesn't make it contrived. I treated each textual citation for your point as separate evidence also. If I go by your complaint, I should also collapse the two verses I cited in your favor down to just one point. You just don't have a whole lot going for you, and you are the one with the burden of proof for the point you are asserting.

I know that you will not accept my arguments because you feel you have a religious obligation to see the Book of Mormon theology as coherent with your present LDS theology. I, on the other hand, have no religious obligation to view them as incoherent

Right... It is interesting to be conversing with someone in such a priviliged, self-appointed, position on the subject.

I don't accept your arguments because they are weak and you only view things in terms of whether or not it hurts your already decided upon conclusion.

If you have something new to present that would significantly address the cumulative case I have presented, fire away.

Aye aye, sir.

In addition to the fine cumulative case I have already presented, which shows quite clearly that the Book of Mormon authors and missionaries were making significant efforts to distance themselves from the term "Great Spirit" and not use it in their teaching, I present Alma 18:4 and Alma 19:25. In these verses Lamoni and then Lamoni's people are convinced that Ammon could be the Great Spirit. They have no qualms about this man, of flesh and blood, being their deity. So there is no belief within the Lamanite culture that their deity was Spirit only. Thus even if the Nephite authors accepted the deity as being somewhat representative of the Nephite belief in God, which is already a dubious assertion, a Spirit-only nature is not implied anyway.

So remove the point from your Guide. If it really isn't all that crucial to your point, as you have already stated, why rationalize the contortions that are necessary to keep it in there? Why restrict your good-faith effort to merely an effort to find a big enough logical loop hole for justifying your position?

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

However, given what you have said about modalism, could you point to where, in the Book of Mormon passages you view as modalistic, they: 1) denied the preexistence of the Son distinct from the Father; 2) denied the deity of Christ; 3) either deny the relationship between the Father and the Son or deny that Jesus really is God after all; and 4) deny any personal relationship between the Father and the Holy Spirit?

Remember, it is not my claim that the Book of Mormon intends to teach an overt modalism. I think there are modalistic statements in the Book of Mormon alongside more traditional trinitarian statements. Thus, I would not expect and do not find statements in the Book of Mormon that overtly deny the trinitarian distinctions. Instead, we find statements that blur or implicitly negate those trinitarian distinctions or that explain them in modalistic ways. For example, see again the following statement:

"1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. 2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son— 3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son— 4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. 5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people" (Mosiah 15:1-5).

Notice here that Abinadi is quoted as saying that God shall be called the Son of God because he comes to dwell in the flesh (v. 2), and that he becomes the Father and the Son by his coming in the flesh (v. 3). Notice also that just as the flesh of Christ is called the Son, the Spirit is called the Father (v. 5). If God becomes the Son when he comes in the flesh, then the Son per se does not preexist that coming in the flesh (point #1 above). If Christ is the Father and the Son, then the Father and the Son, at least in this text, are not distinct persons in relationship with one another but are instead different modes of the same divine person, God (point #3 above). And if the Spirit is identical to the Father, then there is no personal relationship between the Spirit and the Father (point #4 above). Thus we can see in this one passage three of the four implications of modalism that I mentioned in my previous post.

The same explanation of how Christ is both the Father and the Son appears at the beginning of 3 Nephi:

"Behold, I come unto my own, to fulfil all things which I have made known unto the children of men from the foundation of the world, and to do the will, both of the Father and of the Son—of the Father because of me, and of the Son because of my flesh" (3 Ne. 1:14).

Another strongly modalist passage is the following:

"38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? 39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last; 40 And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else.... 44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil" (Alma 11:38-40, 44).

It is difficult to justify distinguishing between Jesus as "the very Eternal Father" on the one hand and "God the Father" on the other hand, especially when these titles appear in such close proximity and in the context of the statement that the three are "one Eternal God." Thus, this passage also seems to be modalist in its treatment of Christ as both Son and Father.

Here are two other passages that are most easily understood as modalist:

"Behold, he created Adam, and by Adam came the fall of man. And because of the fall of man came Jesus Christ, even the Father and the Son; and because of Jesus Christ came the redemption of man" (Mormon 9:12).

"Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son" (Ether 3:14).

There are other passages that at least appear modalist. Notoriously, there are the texts that originally stated that the Lamb of God is "the Eternal Father" (1 Ne. 11:21; 13:40) and which were changed to say that he is "the Son of the Eternal Father." The first of these occurs in the immediate context of a statement calling Mary "the mother of God" which was also changed to "the mother of the Son of God" (1 Ne. 11:18). Yet Christ is called "the Eternal Father" in other texts that were not later altered (Alma 11:38-39, quoted above; also Mosiah 16:15). Mosiah 3:8 says that the Savior "shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning." Similar statements are found elsewhere (Helaman 14:12 is verbally identical; see also Helaman 16:18; Ether 4:7). These statements will fit later LDS doctrinal explanations for how Jesus can be called the Father, but they do fit modalism as well.

As I have said, not everything in the Book of Mormon is consistent with modalism. For example, in one important passage, the Father calls on people to be baptized in the name of his beloved Son, and the Father gives those who do so the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son (2 Ne. 31:11-13, 18). These statements appear in the context of a more traditionally "trinitarian" articulation of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, though the famous statement in verse 21 can be interpreted as either trinitarian or modalist. In this passage in 2 Nephi 31, there is no indication that the Son per se existed prior to God's coming in the flesh. When Jesus appears to the Nephites, his references to the Father and the Holy Ghost also appear more consistent with trinitarianism (see especially 3 Ne. 11:25, 27, 32-36; 19:20-22). Ether 12:41 and Moroni 10:4-5 also sound more trinitarian than modalist to me. Yet it should be noted that modalists are aware of such statements in the New Testament and yet they still claim that the New Testament teaches modalism. This makes it difficult to be certain whether the author of these texts would have viewed them as compatible with modalism. My own assessment is that the Book of Mormon is not consistently modalist but that a good number of its statements explain the Trinity in what can be fairly called a modalist way.

As I hope you can see, I am not trying to force the Book of Mormon into a preconceived theological grid. I am honestly trying to look at the textual evidence in an even-handed way and see what is actually there. What is certainly not in the Book of Mormon is the kind of polytheism we see in Joseph Smith's later theology. The differences between modalism and trinitarianism, though significant, are miniscule in comparison to the differences between both of those theologies on the one hand and the polytheistic theology of the King Follett Discourse and Sermon at the Grove on the other hand.

[Rob Bowman]

LOAP,

You wrote:

Here's something you can do: read Webb and go and do thou likewise. Why do you think I feel comfy praising Webb and criticizing you? (Webb recognizes multiple readings and multiple LDS perspectives, he identifies areas he appreciates in addition to areas he strongly counters. He also recognizes differing Christian approaches with a solid grasp of history and theology and interacts with them as well. These are only a few examples. Do you see the difference?)

No, not really. In my Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide, I also identify areas of LDS teaching that I appreciate as well as areas that I strongly criticize. I also discuss some instances in which Mormons have given multiple interpretations of some of their scriptural texts. I point out places where Mormon doctrine agrees with some Christian theological views and not others. Now, my GPSSG is not written for scholars and does not purport to be an academic monograph, so in that respect it is different from Webb's book. But must all writing be purely academic? Do Millet, Robinson, et. al. publish only academic treatises? Of course not. But in respect to the sorts of values and considerations you mention, my work is comparable to what you describe in the case of Webb.

Again, you appear to be criticizing my work without actually reading it first (see Prov. 18:13; Matt. 7:12).

[Rob Bowman]

Anijen,

What, short of capitulating to the opinions expressed by Mormons here, would convince you that I am considering other views? Have I not engaged in lengthy discussions with Mormons like Dave in this very thread, carefully responding to their arguments? This is a serious question. What would I need to do that I am not already doing to convince you that I am seriously listening to and considering the arguments and viewpoints expressed here?

LOAP

Very fine answer, I do not think it will even dent Bowmans methodology he sees one interpretation and his is right and he does not even consider others. I see no sign of him even considering any others point of view. His polling of LDS was just a lure for his book so he can say "I have questioned many LDS and here is their answers." Of course he gleaned only the ones that prove his point and ignored all others just as he does on these boards.

[Vance]

In addition to the fine cumulative case I have already presented, which shows quite clearly that the Book of Mormon authors and missionaries were making significant efforts to distance themselves from the term "Great Spirit" and not use it in their teaching, I present Alma 18:4 and Alma 19:25. In these verses Lamoni and then Lamoni's people are convinced that Ammon could be the Great Spirit. They have no qualms about this man, of flesh and blood, being their deity. So there is no belief within the Lamanite culture that their deity was Spirit only. Thus even if the Nephite authors accepted the deity as being somewhat representative of the Nephite belief in God, which is already a dubious assertion, a Spirit-only nature is not implied anyway.

So remove the point from your Guide. If it really isn't all that crucial to your point, as you have already stated, why rationalize the contortions that are necessary to keep it in there? Why restrict your good-faith effort to merely an effort to find a big enough logical loop hole for justifying your position?

BAM!!!!!