Institute for Religious Research Study Guide Challenge

[orion88]

In his discussion of chapter 41 of Gospel Principles, Mr. Bowman writes:

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. "Corporeal" means "having a physical body," "fleshy," or "tangible." The Church does not teach that spirits are any of these things.

What did Mr. Smith mean when he said, "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is

matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes" (Doctrine and

Covenants 131:7)?

[TAO]

What did Mr. Smith mean when he said, "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is

matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes" (Doctrine and

Covenants 131:7)?

He meant precisely that. The matter isn't 'immaterial' (non-existant or unable to be affected), rather it is more pure, and can only be discerned (saw) by purer eyes. The statement doesn't conflict with what altersteve said.

[orion88]

He meant precisely that. The matter isn't 'immaterial' (non-existant or unable to be affected), rather it is more pure, and can only be discerned (saw) by purer eyes.

If spirit is matter (and able to be affected), could one spirit being push another spirit being depending

on if he was stronger?

[altersteve]

What did Mr. Smith mean when he said, "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is

matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes" (Doctrine and

Covenants 131:7)?

He meant that spirits are matter, just as oxygen is also matter. This does not mean they have physical bodies. I don't know if a spirit can "push" another spirit, but I don't think so.

Edited January 15, 2012 by altersteve

[TAO]

If spirit is matter (and able to be affected), could one spirit being push another spirit being depending

on if he was stronger?

I have no clue. I don't know enough about it to say whether which way. All I can say right now is that it isn't immaterial... and yet it isn't corporeal either.

[Pahoran]

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

[Bikeemikey]

From the tone of the responses I take it that Bowman has an "secret agenda". It seems that most people responding to the opening post know what his agenda is and have responded to his "secret agenda" rather than his argument directly.

I personally have no interest in proving an anit-mormon position. I am an active mormon, in fact I teach the Sunday School class at my local ward. I really enjoy church etc etc. All of that said, from my perspective, Bowman is making an excellent point; though not an antimormon one.

The Book of Mormon is not the primary theological text that defines our current doctrinal beliefs. In fact, the Book of Mormon taken as a independent book presents some massive gaps between our current theological and doctrinal positions and those advocated with in the Book of Mormon. At the very least, the Book of Mormon presents many theological concepts that, in my opinion, can be very confusing and seem inconsistent.

All of that being said, that should not be a surprise. The Gospel is moving in a direction where our understanding of doctrine is progressing and developing over time. It should not be a surprise that the understanding of God we have to day should be greater than that of 2000 years ago. All knowledge is cumlative. I love the experience of the Brother of Jared. He sees God and for the first time sees a physical body. Prophets are not required to have perfect doctrinal and theological understanding, they are simply required to be able to communicate with God.

For this reason, it is the writings of Joseph Smith and the revelations that he recived, now canonized in the D&C, that seem form the underpinnings of current LDS doctrine, including the all doctrine found in the Sunday School classes. In my opinion, it doesnt matter that the course materials for Sunday School etc can not be 100% proven through the Book of Mormon itself.

After translating the Book of Mormon Joseph Smith had thousands of questions regarding theological and doctrinal points that the Book of Mormon had not made perfectly clear. Joseph Smith asked those questions and we have the D&C to answer them. As we continue to have prophets that ask questions and seek clarification we will continue to see the hirizons of our doctrine made more clear.

I will concede to Bowman that our theology is not expressed perfectly in the Book of Mormon and that to truly find scriptural support for Mormon theology and doctrine in its current form we need to include modern day revelation that goes past the Book of Mormon.

I will also suggest that recognizing this allows us to appreciate the full importance of the Doctrine & Covenants and the fully transformational role of Joseph Smith as a prophet. Surely if the whole thing was a fake Joseph Smith would have done a much better job of creating the Book of Mormon as a prefect expression of Mormon theology. However, evidence would suggest that the teachings of the Book of Mormon were more a starting platform that help refine Joseph Smiths understanding of a new restored theology/doctrine.

So I accept that there is a gap between current Mormon doctrine and the Book of Mormon.

Moreover, if Bowman is suggesting that a disparity between the Book of Mormon and our current day theology is a way of fully realizing the importance of modern day revelation and should help us have more respect for the D&C, I agree.

However, if it is being suggested that any difference between doctrine/theology in the Book of Mormon and current day doctrine/theology in the church is evidence that the Church is note true, etc etc. Then that is totally ridiculous.

As a restored religion founded on the princple of modern day revelation it would be stupid to believe that all our current understanding of Doctrine etc should be able to be found in a book over 1500 years old. We can agree with Bowman and concede that in some areas his challenge will show one of his propositions correct. However, if there is a secret agenda to use this to undermine the church then he has fallen well short.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Bernard Gui]

That's a great thought. I,too, was not being serious.

I was mostly being facetious, though the thought of Rob contributing monetarily to the LDS missionary fund, even indirectly, seems rather delicious to me.

Bernard

[coolrok7]

Rob Bowman is a non-Mormon Christian (not speaking for him personally but I am familiar with a lot of the dialogue he has engaged in while posting here) who doesn't accept the Mormon Gospel for which it is (our perspective) a distortion of the Biblical Gospel in the plagiarizing of a great amount of Biblical Scripture and then rearanging Biblical teaching to suit their own as Mormons.

I don't see that He is deliberatelty misrepresenting Mormon doctrine but is seeking to point out to those who are Christian to beware of what is perceived from our perspective to point out where we think it is flawed reasoning on the Mormon's part in their source of teaching and their methodology of falsely representing what others actually believe, its a two way street as we see Mormons doing what they accuse others of.

He has I think at least tried to be reasonable in making certain corrections and making allowance for some suggestions made by Mormons here on his website such as adding the disclaimer concerning Christians seeking in engaging Mormons in dialogue.

I think somewhere in the past he had stated that he was invited here (as I was).

[Bikeemikey]

Thanks for the update on the who of Rob Bowman. I can now understand some of the responses.

[Bernard Gui]

The 1997 Gospel Principles says in chapter 2 page 14, "If we passed our tests, we would receive the fulness of joy that our heavenly parents have received. (See D&C 93:30–34.)" See http://lds.org/gospe...t%20Here_01.pdf When I looked at the 2009 version, it says, "If we passed our tests, we would receive the fulness of joy that our Heavenly Father has received. (See D&C 93:30–34.) Mr. Smith taught something similar on page 305 of the 1997 version but this part was removed from the 2009 version - "This is the way our Heavenly Father became God. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . .God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345–46)."

Not sure what your point is. Fulness of joy is synonymous with exaltation, or becoming as God is. "Heavenly parents" includes Heavenly

Father. A Mother in heaven would be the topic (and has been) for another thread.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

The Book of Mormon is not the primary theological text that defines our current doctrinal beliefs. In fact, the Book of Mormon taken as a independent book presents some massive gaps between our current theological and doctrinal positions and those advocated with in the Book of Mormon. At the very least, the Book of Mormon presents many theological concepts that, in my opinion, can be very confusing and seem inconsistent...

If one reads the book carefully, the supposed massive gaps mostly disappear, or at worst become scratches on the varnish. That is the point of this thread. We don't have to take another person's word as the be all and end all of what we believe, and certainly not when that person has ulterior purposes.

I will concede to Bowman that our theology is not expressed perfectly in the Book of Mormon and that to truly find scriptural support for Mormon theology and doctrine in its current form we need to include modern day revelation that goes past the Book of Mormon...We can agree with Bowman and concede that in some areas his challenge will show one of his propositions correct. However, if there is a secret agenda to use this to undermine the church then he has fallen well short.

You give up too easily.

Bernard

Edited January 16, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

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

That was not my purpose, but it would be a good one. Thanks for the suggestion. Rob issued the challenge directly to me to find any errors in his 300 pages of commentary on Gospel Doctrine. I chose 47 at random and posted the results. I looked at several other chapters and posted similar findings. It was not difficult and did not require hours of searching through pages of rhetoric.

I think Bowman's overall point is that Joseph Smith's theology changed over time, which is really an indisputable fact.

That was not the point.

The point of that paragraph was to prove the Book of Mormon teaches God is the Great Spirit.

This is not what the Book of Mormon teaches. This is the only time in the BoM that the term is used.

These are conversations between missionaries and non-believers, not expositions on the corporeal

nature of God. Lamoni was reciting the traditions handed down by his father concerning the Great Spirit,

and Ammon used this as a foundation on which to teach him correct doctrine.

Bernard then assures us that Bowman is wrong about chapter 22 because: Again, no one bothered to check Bernard's "context." In reality, just as Ammon was speaking this doctrine to Lamoni in chapter 18, it is Aaron who speaks it to him in 22:8-11: Gee, looks like Rob Bowman was right all along. The Book of Mormon really does teach that God is a spirit. That was easy.

The Book of Mormon really does teach that Jesus was a spirit before he came to earth. It doesn't say a whole

lot about God the Father, but then it is another new testament of Jesus Christ.

Bernard

Edited January 16, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

He has I think at least tried to be reasonable in making certain corrections and making allowance for some suggestions made by Mormons here on his website such as adding the disclaimer concerning Christians seeking in engaging Mormons in dialogue.

But then he disappointed us by lowering himself to the level of Ed Decker and his ilk. See the other current thread.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Also, with the issue about the Book of Mormon referring to God as the "Great Spirit," it can also be pointed out that these verses describe missionary efforts teaching the Lamanites about God. The Lamanites believe in what they call the "Great Spirit," and the Nephite missionaries point out that this Great Spirit is God. It is not meant to be a statement about the nature of God; all these missionaries are doing is building on common beliefs.

Exactly. Thanks for this statement.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

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.

When you are good, you are very, very good. And when you are bad, your are still very, very good.

Thank you for this insightful post. I totally missed the corrected doctrine coming from the same mouth

that had earlier spoken of the Great Spirit. That Joseph! What a clever fellow he was.

Bernard

Edited January 16, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Deborah]

The 1997 Gospel Principles says in chapter 2 page 14, "If we passed our tests, we would

receive the fulness of joy that our heavenly parents have received. (See D&C 93:30–34.)"

See http://lds.org/gospe...t%20Here_01.pdf

When I looked at the 2009 version, it says, "If we passed our tests, we would receive the

fulness of joy that our Heavenly Father has received. (See D&C 93:30–34.)

My own thought is that discussion of a Heavenly Mother is something very sacred and that which requires greater understanding than a cursory reading. We have already seen how the anti-Mormons have taken this belief and mocked and twisted it for their own purposes. We live in an age where everything written and said is almost instantly made public to thousands who without proper context will make judgements without understanding.

[Deborah]

My own thought is that discussion of a Heavenly Mother is something very sacred and that which requires greater understanding than a cursory reading.

I might also point out that though "Heavenly Mother" isn't specifically addressed there are many references to Heavenly Parents. Among them the Nursery manual lesson 1, Gospel Principles Manual lesson 2 and of course the Proclamation on the Family.

[Bikeemikey]

If one reads the book carefully, the supposed massive gaps mostly disappear, or at worst become scratches on the varnish. That is the point of this thread. We don't have to take another person's word as the be all and end all of what we believe, and certainly not when that person has ulterior purposes.

You give up too easily.

Bernard

Hey there Bernard,

I have read the BOM well over 20 times, i could not disagree with you more. The reason for the gap between clearly expressed doctrine in the BOM and the doctrine adhered to by the present day church diminishing with reading has to do with the assumptions that we layer on to the BOM with every reading.

If you and I were not already well educated members of the Gospel well versed in correct doctrinal principles as clearly expressed by the Doctrine and Convenants and other modern revelation, that is to say if we were to pick up the Book of Mormon and read it with no knowledge of the LDS church, and with the specific objective of finding definitive doctrinal and theological teachings we would end up in a very different place. Mainly because on many things the BOM is unclear, not because it is in error.

I am not making the claim that the BOM has doctrine and theological principles that are at odds with current day revelation and doctrine as taught by the church. All I am saying is that, in some areas, there is a major gap between the BOM and current day doctrine.

As for giving up to easily. I am unsure why you would want to, or need to, advocate for a position where the BOM contains the entire doctrinal structure of our current day religious theology. What is the point of a prophet if not to add to existing understandings of doctrine? I personally feel that the claim that the BOM perfectly encapsulates the entirety of LDS doctrine expressed today undermines the entire purpose of the concept of "restoration" and "modern day revelation".

I would counter your comment regarding my giving up to easily with the observation that you become combative and defensive to quickly.

I concede to Bowman's first premise: that there is a gap between doctrine expressed in the church handbooks in current publication and the doctrine expressed in the BOM, not because I seek to undermine the foundation of the gospel; rather this fact Bowman has presented is a great testament and affirmation of the process of prophetic wisdom and process.

Today there are things kids leave primary with a firm understanding and awareness of that prophets of old did not know until they saw God face to face. Milk to Meat, step by step, light to light. The gospel is to process of developing a greater understanding of God.

Let me ask you the question. Why argue with Bowman if the narrow position you are taking actually undermines the process of prophetic education? If Bowman has an anti-mormon agenda then demonstrate to him is critique is actually one of our arguments for the truth of our faith.

Mike

Edited January 16, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hey there Bernard,

I have read the BOM well over 20 times, i could not disagree with you more. The reason for the gap between clearly expressed doctrine in the BOM and the doctrine adhered to by the present day church diminishing with reading has to do with the assumptions that we layer on to the BOM with every reading.

Mike

Good for you. I have read the BoM well over 20 times too and guess what I disagree with your assessment and agree with Bernard.

The scriptures that were quoted in the OP have to deal with building on a common belief. They are not about teaching said beliefs as if they were true or believed by all that are discussing them. We did this all the time in the mission field. "You know the Trinity, we believe in that too as Mormons". When talking with Baptists it was much easier to build on that belief then tear it down and say "The doctrine of the Trinity is false". The fact that you and Xander don't see the text for what, it is tell me you guys have an agenda.

[Xander]

Did you even read my post at all (post #9)?

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. That is something you guys like to read into it but there is no basis for it. In fact, he clearly states in unambiguous terms that the "Great Spirit" to which they referred, was in fact "God." Hence, 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.

I further point out that Ammon was mistaken for the Great Spirit, and yet he clearly had a physical body.

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.

Obviously, being a "Great Spirit" did not preclude being corporeal.

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.

The simple fact is there is nothing in the Book of Mormon, despite the plethora of "missionary teachings," that tells us about the "true" Mormon doctrine that God the father is composed of flesh and bones. And this makes perfect sense, because it wasn't part of Joseph Smith's theology until after the Book of Mormon was published.

And furthermore, the God which is being referred to here is Jesus Christ, who, at the time this conversation between Ammon and Lamoni took place, had not entered into mortality to receive a body. So there is absolutely nothing wrong with this verse either way.

Again you're reading current Mormon doctrine into the text when the text says no such thing. Bowman cannot reasonably be faulted for refusing to play along according to your rules. Though I suspect that will not stop you guys from trying to find fault anyway. This is really one hilarious example of how group think mixed with apologetic zeal leads to its own form of bigotry.

Edit: Incidentally, I was banned from viewing the thread where I demonstrated Bernar'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.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Xander

[mfbukowski]

I think the situation is much more devious than simple mistakes. He is certainly smart enough to know better and he has been on this forum long enough to have heard correct doctrine. What he does is publish half-truths and taking statements out of context in order to lead people to a incorrect, false impression of the LDS Church and its members. Rob, please correct me if I am wrong in these statements or explain how your work can be so filled with errors.

Ah yes, we are beginning to see already.

[Ares]

The IRR site is not exclusively Rob Bowman's creation. While he is a researcher and executive at IRR and bears some editorial responsibility for their materials it is not "Bowman's site". Since we don't allow personal threads I'm changing the title of this one. Please follow form and be respectful as possible while agreeing or disagreeing with the content of the site he researches for.

Thank you,

[mfbukowski]

Rather than helping hm correct his errors, I think it would be better to let them be for the most part as that way when people go to read the actual stuff at lds.org (I believe he has links to the actual lessons to allow people to read the quotes in context themselves, if not then it would demonstrate a desire to deceive imo) so that people can see that his interpretation is through an overly biased filter and thus it would be better if they really want to learn what LDS believe that they just read the manual themselves.

If he does give LDS credit on his pages for making corrections, he can make it appear as if his work is LDS approved. Do you really want that?

Ephesians 4

11And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 15But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 16From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

We all know this scripture, but this brings it into high relief, comparing our beliefs to the divisions within Protestantism, and why a few Protestants indeed "lie in wait to deceive".

[Bikeemikey]

Good for you. I have read the BoM well over 20 times too and guess what I disagree with your assessment and agree with Bernard.

The scriptures that were quoted in the OP have to deal with building on a common belief. They are not about teaching said beliefs as if they were true or believed by all that are discussing them. We did this all the time in the mission field. "You know the Trinity, we believe in that too as Mormons". When talking with Baptists it was much easier to build on that belief then tear it down and say "The doctrine of the Trinity is false". The fact that you and Xander don't see the text for what, it is tell me you guys have an agenda.

Hey there Mola Ram Suda Ram,

There is nothing wrong with building on common belief. I am also not overly concerned the specific instances cited in the opening post. Though the trinity example is an interesting one. If you were to try and convince someone that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are three distinct entities each with their own bodies, two physical and one spirit, the Book of Mormon would be insufficient to perform that task. It comes down on both sides of the issue by being nicely ambiguous. However, to help us out we have modern day revelation that spells it out in the D&C with extreme clarity.

If you sit down and try to prove categorically that the trinity in its current LDS format was the universally expressed principle of Godhead in the BOM I think you would be unable to. That is you would be unable to with out relying on assumptions and ideas generated from your preexisting knowledge of the truths in the D&C.

Your mission example is also interesting. When I was on my mission building on common beliefs was a little more difficult as I served in Taiwan. Both the language and the culture represented a substantial obstacle. It caused us as missionaries to really have to simplify the process of "sharing the gospel". We had to start with the absolute basics of Mormon doctrine and theology as there was not even a shared idea of Christian principles. So it came as a great surprise when we would start sharing very basic ideas about the Godhead/trinity to investigators and they would have no issue understanding the ideas we were teaching, as well as the passages we were sharing from the BOM to support them - but there response was, that is not what the BOM said. They would often not understand why we were teaching about the Godhead in a way that seemed inconsistent with our own scriptures. It was at this point that in an effort to not be confrontational my Missionary companion and I read and reread the passages and realized that they were in fact very ambiguous, unless you already have the correct ideas from the D&C and modern day revelation. We just started the Godhead discussion with the D&C and then moved on to the BOM.

But again. None of this has any impact on the truth of the gospel etc.

So collect all of the passages in the BOM about the Godhead. Read them over. Let me know if there are any ambiguities in the expression of this concept. And most of all, do all this like you are not a Mormon, or even a Christian. Some of the greatest teaching moments for me have come when I have successfully read the BOM with no pre-existing notions.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Bikeemikey