Institute for Religious Research Study Guide Challenge

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

Your boiler plate criticism that I am claiming to explain Mormonism better than Mormons is tiresome. It has nothing to do with the facts.

No you ignore good faith criticisms of your approach. I can trump 1700 years of Christian philosophers with one good living prophet - but you start with the assumption that those philosophers are true and the LDS prophet is false then proceed to assume you can explain Mormonism better than Mormons themselves.

[Vance]

LOAP,

Please, tell me your name, Mr. Scholar, and provide me with your academic credentials and scholarly accomplishments, so that I may know what my $12 would be getting.

Would doing so somehow improve your sloppy "scholarship"?

[Ares]

But as we see above, he really isn't willing to go to the philosophical mat and defend his central metaphysical/religious assertions in depth. He wishes to restate, repeatedly, the fundamental claim, but refrains from jumping into the meat grinder and taking them apart to see what makes them tick.

If you have a specific topic where you feel Rob has not explained his assumptions please start a thread to discuss it. Too many generalizations are leading to an impasse and personal comments on both sides of this discussion.

[mfbukowski]

LOAP,

You wrote:

I've really taken enough of this abuse. If you don't take the challenge seriously, then leave it alone.

Please, tell me your name, Mr. Scholar, and provide me with your academic credentials and scholarly accomplishments, so that I may know what my $12 would be getting.

I would be extremely happy to have LDS individuals brave enough to use their own names and academically savvy enough to know what they are doing critique my work. There are a few Mormons in this thread who do use their own names, though as far as I know they are not trained in the relevant disciplines. But I'm open to serious criticisms from anyone. But the point of the challenge was not to find proofreaders or nit-pickers who would find fault with minor points of interpretation or raise silly semantic objections like the one about my use of the word corporeal. I was not looking for advice, although I welcome constructive criticism offered in good faith (i.e., offered without denigrating my character, intentions, or academic abilities). The point was simply to invite Mormons who are suspicious of my intentions to read my work and make a fair assessment as to whether I make a good-faith effort to understand Mormon belief accurately (not whether I agree with Mormon beliefs or present all of their arguments and objections completely). I am confident that anyone who approached that challenge honestly and seriously would have to admit that I do make such a good-faith effort. I am also regrettably confident that most of my detractors here will continue to dismiss my work without giving it a fair reading.

If you took the time to actually read his posts you would know his name- he has linked to them on this thread, said "I wrote this" with a link and his name is right there. We who post here all know who he is, and trust me, you should take him up on his offer.

I can't believe he would take his time for that kind of money, frankly. He really must want to help the cause of Christian unity.

In fact, every post contains a link to his website which contains his name and a short bio

Edited February 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Rob Bowman]

Loran,

You wrote:

I think coming here and claiming that most people here have not read and do not understand their own scriptures as much as you do is a bit much. That way lies disaster.

I said no such thing. I was pointing out a double standard. On the one hand, I have read the LDS scriptures and thousands of pages of LDS scholarship and apologetics, and my critiques of LDS doctrines and claims are made from that base of knowledge. On the other hand, quite a few Mormons here presume to judge not only the quality of my work but also my motives and intentions without first reading my work--and they think this is fully justified merely because of my viewpoint.

[Vance]

Your boiler plate criticism that I am claiming to explain Mormonism better than Mormons is tiresome. It has nothing to do with the facts.

Actually, your performance on this very thread is evidence for the truth of his "boiler plate criticism".

Just sayin.

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

Your boiler plate criticism that I am claiming to explain Mormonism better than Mormons is tiresome. It has nothing to do with the facts.

Boiler Plate? If you can find my comments quoted in some how to handle critics handbook for Mormons you can call it boilerplate. I beleieve those are actually my own original thoughts.

If you do not believe you can understand Mormons better than they can themselves then why the need to create a study guide to explain our curricula? Why not let it stand for itself instead of making awkward attempts at producing youtube videos, web sites and books to contrast Mormonism with Evangelism?

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

If you took the time to actually read his posts you would know his name- he has linked to them on this thread, said "I wrote this" with a link and his name is right there. We who post here all know who he is, and trust me, you should take him up on his offer.

Again, I'm not soliciting editorial assistance from Mormons. That isn't the topic of this thread. But thanks -- I checked his signature line and went to his blog.

[Rob Bowman]

Folks, I'm really not interested in continued participation in this thread if the posts are going to continue to ignore the topic stated in the opening post. I'm especially uninterested in more posts questioning my motives from people who refuse to take a serious look at my work.

[KevinG]

Loran,

You wrote:

I said no such thing. I was pointing out a double standard. On the one hand, I have read the LDS scriptures and thousands of pages of LDS scholarship and apologetics, and my critiques of LDS doctrines and claims are made from that base of knowledge. On the other hand, quite a few Mormons here presume to judge not only the quality of my work but also my motives and intentions without first reading my work--and they think this is fully justified merely because of my viewpoint.

Not quite. I think you are in error about what Mormons believe because of your foundational assumptions (perhaps your body of work as a countercult minister and researcher) color your understanding of Mormons to the degree you fail to comprehend your volumes of reading and research.

I have invited you to observe and learn with Mormons in their native environment (Sunday School, Institutes, etc.) to learn what we teach, emphasise and comprehend about our own beliefs. It will be much more productive than arguing with anonymous apologists on the internet.

A true scholar might avail himself of the more than weekly opportunity to do this before claiming expertise on Mormons.

[KevinG]

Folks, I'm really not interested in continued participation in this thread if the posts are going to continue to ignore the topic stated in the opening post. I'm especially uninterested in more posts questioning my motives from people who refuse to take a serious look at my work.

I will step out again so I don't derail this thread.

Please remember that you are dealing with a large group of people who do not get professional time or reimbursement for explaining their religion to you. That doesn't mean they aren't intelligent, informed or scholarly - it does mean that it would take a long time and great expense to review all of the materials you have produced to date for accuracy.

Essentially you are asking us to prove why your opinions of Mormonism don't conform to your evangelical assumptions about Mormonism. If your purpose is not to warn people about Mormonism then why the great volume of work to show that Mormonism and Evangelicals think differently about religion? It makes me very wary of the motivation behind the ministry.

Why not let Mormonism speak for itself? That would be the most accurate telling of all.

Edited February 6, 2012 by DaddyG

[Loran Blood]

If you have a specific topic where you feel Rob has not explained his assumptions please start a thread to discuss it. Too many generalizations are leading to an impasse and personal comments on both sides of this discussion.

I understand, but Rob himself brought up the subject:

I don't accept preconceived notions about Mormonism. I have read far more extensively in pro-Mormon apologetic literature than I have the literature critical of Mormonism. Along the way I have challenged some of the common criticisms of Mormonism. For example, as I have pointed out in this very thread, I have not accepted the claim made by some critics that the Book of Mormon teaches modalism. They may be right, but my opinion at present is that the Book of Mormon teaches an unsophisticated and inconsistent trinitarianism that in places uses modalistic explanations. I do my own research and reach my own conclusions.

I was just trying to expand upon it and nail down a clear, coherent topic. Let's see what we get in a spin-off thread.

[Rob Bowman]

Loran,

You wrote:

I was just trying to expand upon it and nail down a clear, coherent topic. Let's see what we get in a spin-off thread.

I am not inclined to engage in a protracted philosophical discussion with you about the differences between modalism and trinitarianism, or about the philosophical coherence of trinitarianism. It isn't relevant to my observations about the Book of Mormon theology, which were to the effect that whether one describes it as trinitarian, modalist, or some variation or combination of either or both, it certainly isn't polytheism.

[Loran Blood]

Loran,

You wrote:

I am not inclined to engage in a protracted philosophical discussion with you about the differences between modalism and trinitarianism, or about the philosophical coherence of trinitarianism. It isn't relevant to my observations about the Book of Mormon theology, which were to the effect that whether one describes it as trinitarian, modalist, or some variation or combination of either or both, it certainly isn't polytheism.

But it is relevant to serious questions regarding the legitimacy of evangelical Protestantism as an authentic form of "Christianity," which is relevant to the core of much of your life's work - showing that Mormonism is not authentic Christianity.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

No, you are completely wrong. No one argues this.

Oh yes, they very much do.

Pragmatism for example is a different theory than the correspondence theory of truth.

Pragmatism, at least in its normative form, is not part of the postmodern tradition, although it has epistemological problems of its own (as does utilitarianism).

I really don't want to re-hash a hundred years of philosophy to bring you up to speed. "Postmodernism" is not a single philosophy- and doesn't make truth claims in the sense you are using the word-

Oh, i"m well aware of the fact that postmodernism is a chamelion-like moving target, which is its primary evasive manuver when one attempst to corner it philsophically. But many of its central originators and innovators do retain strong resemblances as to some core philosphical conclusions regarding the nature of the subject, human nature, and epistemological processes. This goes all the way back to Sartre and runs through Fourcault and other contemporaneous postmodern thinkers.

No one has ever said that all propositions are "equally legitimate". That is absurd

Except that deconstruction and postmodern literary theory, among other applications, make precisely this claim (with strong exceptions based upon ideological preference) in various forms.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Calm]

Mr. Bowman should not assume that simply because someone has chosen not to publicly critique his work for his benefit that they have not read his material.

I have done what he asked (though not the whole Study Guide, a substantial part and if he shared the percentage of the BoM that he has read, I would be happy to match my reading his material the same amount) and made my judgment based on that and his work here.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

Mr. Bowman should not assume that simply because someone has chosen not to publicly critique his work for his benefit that they have not read his material.

I made no such assumption. I simply said that no one here has expressed an opinion on the challenge question based on such a reading of the material.

You wrote:

I have done what he asked (though not the whole Study Guide, a substantial part and if he shared the percentage of the BoM that he has read, I would be happy to match my reading his material the same amount) and made my judgment based on that and his work here.

I have read through the entire Book of Mormon, though I have spent more time carefully examining some parts more than other parts.

[Calm]

I have read through the entire Book of Mormon, though I have spent more time carefully examining some parts more than other parts.

Then I will commit to reading your entire Study Guide.

[Rob Bowman]

Loran,

You wrote:

But it is relevant to serious questions regarding the legitimacy of evangelical Protestantism as an authentic form of "Christianity," which is relevant to the core of much of your life's work - showing that Mormonism is not authentic Christianity.

You make an interesting observation here. Showing that Mormonism is not authentic Christianity is directly relevant to defending the legitimacy of evangelical Protestantism as authentically Christian. After all, if Mormonism is what it claims to be, then evangelicalism is part of the Great Apostasy. This means, contrary to much of the overheated rhetoric used here against what I do, that critiquing Mormon doctrines and claims is simply one relevant aspect of standing up for and defending my own evangelical beliefs.

But you are mistaken in thinking that my "life's work" is showing that Mormonism is not authentic Christianity. I have already responded to this misrepresentation earlier in this thread. Critiquing Mormonism has been a very small part of the work I have done over the years.

In any case, I believe in the Trinity because I think it is the only doctrine of God that adequately affirms all that the Bible teaches about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If you are going to challenge the doctrine of the Trinity, you will need to do so either by challenging that conclusion or by showing why we should not consider the Bible's teaching on this subject to be trustworthy. Philosophical discussions about the metaphysical issues are worth pursuing only in a context where the participants are reasonably up to speed on the philosophical analysis of trinitarianism. There is also the matter of time; I am already stretched quite thin because of family chronic medical issues and other responsibilities -- and I have been spending quite a bit of my own time already in these discussions. So you would need to persuade me that such a discussion would hold out some potential for being fruitful by engaging some actual trinitarian thinking on the subject, rather than simply presenting your own philosophical objections constructed off the top of your head without reference to what trinitarians actually say.

[wenglund]

No, those four points were not criteria for identifying modalism. They were four ways in which the differences between modalism and trinitarianism were genuinely significant and could not be explained away as merely semantic.

So, if those four ways aren't a part of the criteria for identifying modalism as differentiated from trinitarianism, then what is your criteria? (I am sorry, but you parsing seems to be getting in the way of you making sense.)

No, and I don't think it is comparable, because what Isaiah 9:6 presents is a name that describes Christ;

Since Abinadi is presenting names (the Father, and the Son) that describe respective aspects of Christ's incarnate nature, then it is comparable.

it is not offering an explanation for the meaning of the designation "Son," as in Mosiah 15:2.

Of course it is. How can you not see it? The meaning of "Son of God" is: "he dwelleth in the flesh and subjected the flesh to the will of the Father."

Also, we have essentially a fairly involved explanation of the Incarnation in Mosiah 15:1-5, and the whole thing is modalistic, not just the use of a single word like "Father."

No. It is dualistic, not modalistic. The label of "Father" and "Son" identify individually the respective dual aspects of the incarnate Christ--the spirit and the flesh, or that which, in your venacular, is fully God as differentiated from that which is fully man.

How is it that you are not seeing this? It seems so obvious that the only way you would miss it is to, as I explained, misread the context as a description of the number of persons that are God, rather than rightly as a description of the nature of the incarnate Christ.

That you now hold tenaciously to your previous misperception even after being corrected, is telling.

No. But to say that his nature as God is the Father and his nature as man is the Son is modalistic.

So, when you as a trinitarian describe the nature of the incarnate Christ as fully God and fully man, then regardless of what labels you apply to distinguish between the two, then your view of the incarnate Christ is modalistic? If not, then your conclusion above doesn't logically follow.

The Book of Mormon text does not say that the Son became a mortal man. It says that God became a man in the flesh and thereby became the Father and the Son.

This is like saying that the Book of Mormon doesn't say half a dozen, it says sixes. Seriously, you can't be this obtuse.

Not quite. Christ has always been the Son..

CFR where in the Bible the pre-mortal Christ was called the "Son".

...in the Bible this is not referring to his "mode" of being in the flesh.

Neither is the flesh referred to as a "mode" in Mosiah 15:1-5. You are mistakely reading mode into the text. Rather, the flesh is described as component of the dual nature of the incarnate Christ. What will it take for you to get this?

No. I said no such thing, nor did I imply it. Everything in John 14, including the line you are taking out of context, makes it clear that Jesus is not himself the Father.

Symbolically, he is. That is my point. You are selectively interpeting Abinadi's symbolic meaning in an overly literalistic sense, while correctly interpreting Christ's symbolic words in John 14 in a symbolic sense. That is why you misunderstand the former and correctly understand the later. Now, if we can just get you to be consistent in your understanding...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LifeOnaPlate]

I've really taken enough of this abuse. If you don't take the challenge seriously, then leave it alone.

It isn't simply that I don't take it seriously. I've mentioned two specific problems with your study guide and you've dismissed both of them. I've also offered to create a studied critique of your study guide.

Please, tell me your name, Mr. Scholar, and provide me with your academic credentials and scholarly accomplishments, so that I may know what my $12 would be getting.

I've worked as the news editor of a University newspaper, and a staff reporter for two other newspapers. I have a BA in mass communication with a minor in religious studies from the University of Utah. I'm currently pursuing a master's degree in religious studies at Georgetown University. I've also published articles and reviews in various Mormon-themed journals. (Using your research skills you could also click the link in my signature and discover this information on my blog.)

But the point of the challenge was not to find proofreaders or nit-pickers who would find fault with minor points of interpretation or raise silly semantic objections like the one about my use of the word corporeal. I was not looking for advice, although I welcome constructive criticism offered in good faith (i.e., offered without denigrating my character, intentions, or academic abilities).

You're essentially asking people here to approach your work in good faith, and I'm telling you that you do not come across as bringing good faith to the LDS sources you're trying to critique in your "study guide." You can dismiss any suggestion as being nit-picky.

The point was simply to invite Mormons who are suspicious of my intentions to read my work and make a fair assessment as to whether I make a good-faith effort to understand Mormon belief accurately (not whether I agree with Mormon beliefs or present all of their arguments and objections completely).

Based on your exchange here re: the Great Spirit, and based on your first chapter of the study guide, I am telling you: no, you are not making a good-faith effort to understand Mormon belief accurately, and in addition, you aren't even presenting the diversity that is Christianity accurately, either. You have dismissed this criticism on the grounds that you are not trying to present a scholarly analysis. Then you still try to pretend that you've put together a responsible scholarly work.

I am confident that anyone who approached that challenge honestly and seriously would have to admit that I do make such a good-faith effort. I am also regrettably confident that most of my detractors here will continue to dismiss my work without giving it a fair reading.

i.e., "To the extent that someone agrees with me, they are reading me fairly." I disagree that you offer a good-faith effort. I grant that you might believe it is a good-faith effort. Perhaps to that extent I might be willing to say it is in "good faith." (On the other hand, given that you work for a counter-cult association specifically geared not to present its own view of Christianity, but to criticize the religion of other people, all while aping scholarship when actually proselyting, I'd still question its being in good faith.) As I said above, comparing your work with Stephen Webb's shows a stark difference between your criticisms of Mormonism and Webb's good-faith engagement with it.

Please at least answer the following:

Why do you think I, as a Mormon, would heartily endorse Stephen Webb's book (a non-Mormon who challenges some key LDS beliefs) while I also say yours is not quality?

Edited February 6, 2012 by LifeOnaPlate

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

Then I will commit to reading your entire Study Guide.

I appreciate that very much. Would you like me to email you a PDF of the whole series as one document? That would make it much easier for you to read the whole thing.

[Calm]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

I appreciate that very much. Would you like me to email you a PDF of the whole series as one document? That would make it much easier for you to read the whole thing.

No that's okay. I tend to enjoy wandering among a website as things catch my attention. If I read it in a pdf, I deprive myself of that opportunity.

I am curious. If I read it completely and still believe that while you may have tried to make a good faith effort, that you failed in that purpose, will my statement of such merit being labeled an honest and serious statement or would my disagreeing with you automatically disqualify my own effort from being honest and serious?

Edited February 6, 2012 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

Now, if only you had pointed to something in the passage that my interpretation misses, you'd have something.

I had done so, and now I have done so again. Please see above.

No, I didn't view the passage that way, and I don't view it that way.

I will have to take your word for it since you seem to be using the word "modalism" differently that what I am familiar.

I am aware of the incarnate Christ being considered as a mode by modalists (and a separate mode differentiated from the Father and Spirit), but I am not familiar with people, modalists or otherwise, referring respectively to each individual part of the dual nature of the incarnate Christ as differing modes. Certainly, there is nothing in Mosiah 15:1-5 to suggest that Abinadi viewed each individual part of Christ's incarnate nature as "modes", any more than one might view Paul's description, in Romans 8, of man's dual nature, as "modes".

Perhaps a better way to state your problem is that you mistake Mosiah 15:1-5 as a theological treatise rather than rightly as a Christological treatise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 6, 2012 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

Except that deconstruction and postmodern literary theory, among other applications, make precisely this claim (with strong exceptions based upon ideological preference) in various forms.

Uh huh.

When you find someone named "Postmodern" please show me that claim

Edited February 6, 2012 by mfbukowski