Institute for Religious Research Study Guide Challenge

[altersteve]

This is an easy one.

The word corporeal has a range of uses or meanings depending on context. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language gives as its first definition of corporeal "Of, relating to, or characteristic of the body." The second definition is "Of a material nature; tangible." Here, of course, we run into the fact that LDS theology teaches that spirits have bodies that are material but not tangible. This is a theological distinction that cuts across the way the term corporeal is typically understood, but in any case my meaning is plainly that the LDS Church teaches that spirits exist in bodily forms and are composed of matter. As you know, that is precisely the case.

It's misleading, though. Many of your readers may interpret "corporeal" to mean "tangible," "having a body," and will thus be misled to believe that the LDS teach that spirits are tangible, physical beings. This is not the case. To avoid confusion, it may be appropriate to change this.

Edited January 17, 2012 by altersteve

[altersteve]

Kevin has already given a partial refutation of the criticism that has been made of my argument concerning "the Great Spirit" in the Book of Alma. However, one point that he did not get an opportunity to answer was the suggestion that the Great Spirit is identified as God because in the Book of Mormon context "God" refers to Jesus Christ, who at the time was still spirit and not flesh.

I don't think this is wrong, but the implication that in this passage and other passages God is Christ the Son and not God the Father appears to be incorrect. And since Bernard and others have accused me of taking the references to the Great Spirit out of context, I will provide more ample context than anyone so far in this thread.

Note, as Kevin pointed out, that Ammon explicitly identifies the Great Spirit as God. The suggestion that Ammon disagreed with that designation but accepted it for evangelistic purposes is an exercise in begging the question. Ammon then says that this God made the heavens and the earth, and that God and his angels dwell in heaven. Later LDS theology will attribute the work of making the heavens and the earth to Jesus Christ the Son as distinct from the Father, but the Book of Mormon has no such distinction, instead asserting in various places that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God and even that Jesus Christ is the Father and the Son. You are all familiar with these statements, I'm sure, and have your explanations for them. But if you wish to insist that the Great Spirit is Christ and not the Father, the second part of verse 34 poses a particular difficulty for that claim, as Ammon says that he, as a human being, was made in the image of God. It is most natural, and from what I have seen most often the case, for Mormons to understand the description of human beings as made in God's image to mean that "we are created in the image of our Eternal Father" ("The Fullness of the Gospel: The Nature of the Godhead," Ensign, Jan. 2006).

Mormons are, of course, free to interpret the Book of Mormon in any way they wish. When I cited the references to the Great Spirit, I was not claiming to report how Mormons today understand those references. I was providing evidence for the theological development of LDS doctrine from the rather more traditionalist doctrine of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's earliest revelations to the plurality of Gods doctrine that emerged years later. Those that take a diachronic approach to the LDS texts should be able to see, at the very least, the plausibility of this claim regarding the development of LDS doctrine.

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

Once again, Ammon did not agree that God is the Great Spirit. He said, in context, that what Lamoni believes is the Great Spirit is actually God. It is not meant to assert that God does not have a body, or even that Jesus Christ is the God spoken of here, because it really doesn't matter. God is God, whether it is the Father or the Son who is being referred to. They are both God and they can both, individually and collectively, be referred to as such. Furthermore, as I said previously, Ammon is building upon common beliefs here, and by doing so teaches Lamoni that the "Great Spirit" is God, the Creator of heaven and earth. And it is LDS doctrine that the Father created the earth by instructing the Son to do so. It is also LDS doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, and that Jesus Christ is both the Father and the Son. But it helps to understand what each of these mean.

Your post is full of absolutely trivial arguments that pose no problems for LDS believers whatsoever.

Edited January 17, 2012 by altersteve

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

From Hugh Nibley's Teachings of the Book of Mormon, Lecture 51: Ammon and King Lamoni:

Ammon said, now I can preach to him and he will believe me. So he began, "Believest thou that there is a God?" God is an epithet, you see. [Ammon] would have used Eloah or Eli. He said, "I do not know what that meaneth." It was an unfamiliar word. "And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?" Now, that's the epithet they all used, the Great Spirit. "And he said, Yea. And Ammon said: "This is God," [like saying], "This is Allah."

Do I believe in the Great Spirit? Yes. We are going to have this repeated a number of times in the rest of the book here, where the Great Spirit which they believed in is made absolutely identical with the God we believe in. So if an Indian asked me, "do you believe in the Great Spirit?" I would say, "yes, I do believe in the Great Spirit." It's the same thing.

If an Arab asked me, "Do you believe in Allah?" there's no other word [he could use] for God. So I would say, "Of course, I believe in Allah. I think I know more about him than you do." "I know more about the Great Spirit than you do. Do you want to hear more?" That's the approach that Ammon is using here. He gets him to say, yes, I believe in the Great Spirit. Then he says, well, so do I; now I'll tell you who he is. He said, "This is God."

I wonder whether I should read you something here. It's rather distasteful, but it will illustrate what I have in mind. This is a news item from January 1986. The president of the Customs Clearing House, a Denver-based firm, wrote a letter to the Navajo Tribal Council protesting favored treatment in hiring practices of Navajos on the reservation. Well, shouldn't Navajos have a favored position when they are being hired to work in the oil fields on the Navajo Reservation? He didn't like that at all, and this is the letter he wrote.

"Given the historical facts, we consider ourselves to be members of the conquering and superior race and you to be members of the vanquished and inferior race. We hold your land and property to be spoils of war, ours by right of conquest. Through the generosity of our people, you have been given a reservation where you may prance and dance as you please, obeying your kings and worshipping your false gods."

Now, I'm wondering if this man is a Latter-day Saint because I've heard them talk just like that. His name is Ronald Ventris and he is president of the company that supplies the oil fields with their equipment. "Contacted Monday, Ventris said he had no regrets about the sending of the letter," and there was no outrage or anything else. This is the position we have taken—this idea that they worship false gods and they have no rights at all because we worship the only true God. That's not so. The Book of Mormon tells us a very different story.

Verse 26: "And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yea. And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?" Well, the Indian believed that already. These are all the basic questions. "And he said: Yea, I believe that he created all things which are in the earth; but I do not know the heavens." Well, who does? This is the cosmological aspect of it. Then Ammon explains to him more; he is going to teach him more about it.

"The heavens is a place where God dwells and all his holy angels." And King Lamoni, speaking with the innocence of a child, said, "Is it above the earth? And Ammon said: Yea, and he looketh down upon all the children of men; and he knows all the thoughts and intents of the heart; for by his hand were they all created from the beginning." Most people think this is a primitive superstition—that heaven is a place where God dwells with all his angels. We smile at the expression.

Verse 33: "And king Lamoni said: I believe all these things which thou hast spoken. Art thou sent from God?" It's very interesting that he doesn't give him a direct answer. He's still careful not to give a false impression or to take advantage of Lamoni's gullibility. He could have exploited that a lot. Lamoni is willing to believe anything he will tell him, but he wants to tell him only the truth. He could have made great capital out of his gullibility and trustworthiness.

"And king Lamoni said: I believe all these things which thou hast spoken. Art thou sent from God? Ammon said unto him: I am a man [so don't get any ideas that I am superhuman or an angel or anything like that]; and man in the beginning was created after the image of God, and I am called by his Holy Spirit [he hasn't talked to God face to face] to teach these things unto this people, that they may be brought to a knowledge of that which is just and true; [Then he meets him halfway here:] 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."

As we said before, faith is not the power; it plugs into the power. It gives you access to the power. My faith gets me the power, but it is not the power. It amounts to it, if it comes to that. He began with the story of the [creation] and the fall "and rehearsed and laid before him the records and the holy scriptures [the project to follow this through would have been impossible without the scriptures] of the people, which had been spoken by the prophets, even down to the time that their father, Lehi, left Jerusalem, . . . the journeyings of their fathers in the wilderness . . . and he expounded unto them all the records and scriptures from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem down to the present time [verse 38]. . . . For he expounded unto them the plan of redemption, which was prepared from the foundation of the world [see, he takes the gospel back to the preexistence, and he calls it the plan, you notice]; and he also made known unto them concerning the coming of Christ."

God the Father is a Spirit, as stated in John 4:24. So is the Spirit of Wisdom. So is Christ. We are all Spirits. The glory of God is the Uncreated Intelligence which He, fundamentally, is - His Free Will. The same is true for all the rest of us. Doesn't mean we don't have physical bodies. Doesn't mean we can't metaphorically become One with each other in the At-one-ment, as Christ prayed for in John 17:22.

Edited January 17, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Even better, read 'Promised Lands':

With increasing interest in the Indians and a considerable growing literature on the subject, the Mormons are regularly given a black eye in books and articles—a black eye which they would not deserve if they would only pay a little more attention to their scriptures. There is one common ground, one common need, between us and them, and it is the Book of Mormon. Consider how much it tells us about the present situation.

First of all, we accept the Great Spirit—we do not consider the Indians heathen. King Lamoni mistook the visiting superman Ammon for the Great Spirit, a mistake which his descendants have made more than once, to their loss. To his servants he said, "I know that [this] is the Great Spirit; and he has come down at this time to preserve your lives" (Alma 18:4). But Ammon explained that he was not the Great Spirit, "Believest thou that there is a God?" (Alma 18:24). Lamoni: "I do not know what that meaneth" (Alma 18:25), or What are you talking about? Ammon: "Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yea. And Ammon said This is God, . . . this Great Spirit . . . is God [who] created all things" (Alma 18:26—28). Can we not safely say that we believe on that same Great Spirit who is God, just as we believe in Allah when we understand who he is? Our missionaries in Lebanon had no other name for him.

In the second place we believe the one thing which the Indians are constantly emphasizing, that all things are spiritual; to be carnal minded, says the Book of Mormon, is death; but to be spiritually minded is eternal life. Carnal mindedness embraces those four things which both Nephis declare will destroy any society, namely seeking for power, gain, popularity, and the lusts of the flesh (1 Nephi 22:23; 3 Nephi 6:15). For particulars see your local TV guide.

In the third place is their attitude to nature, which is their livelihood, beautifully summed up in Doctrine and Covenants 49: "For behold, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which cometh of the earth, is ordained for the use of man for food and for raiment, and that he might have in abundance. But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin. And wo unto man that sheddeth blood or that wasteth flesh and hath no need" (D&C 49:19—21). This is the creed of the Hopi which so shocks us. If you live on a soaring rock 200 yards long and 50 yards wide with a hundred other families, you will find little room to accumulate the things of this world.

What we are speaking of is that ideal society described in the Book of Mormon as being established by the Lord in person, to succeed and fulfill the Law of Moses, that society which we should both emulate.

Edited January 17, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

Thanks for jumping into this discussion. You wrote:

Following this line of reasoning, I assume you also believe that Paul was equating a Greek pagan deity with the God of the Bible when he said the Greek's "Unknown God" was the God of the Bible, creator of heaven and earth.

No. The "unknown God" was not a Greek pagan deity. It was not a specific deity at all. Paul was referring to an altar "to an unknown god." The idea was that the Athenians didn't want to offend any god they might have missed (or any visitors whose god they might have missed) and so they had an altar that basically said, "Hey, if there's any god out there for which we don't have an altar, this one's for you." So the altar was not honoring any specific deity. Paul's point in Acts 17:23 is that the altar represented an admission by the Athenians that there was at least one deity out there they did not know. "Have I got a God for you!" is one way of paraphrasing his message. The Athenians had asked Paul for an explanation of his teaching because they thought he was proclaiming strange or foreign deities (an assessment tinged with ominous overtones since this same criticism had been leveled against Socrates). In a brilliant rhetorical move, Paul points out that they themselves acknowledged by that altar that there might be one or more deities of which they were ignorant, and he announced that he had come to tell them about the real God of whom they were ignorant.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

No. As explained to you on numerous occasions, the criticism is that you are expressing your disagreement with LDS beliefs under the guise of attempting to fairly represent LDS beliefs. To avoid misrepresenting LDS beliefs necessitates stating their interpretations, and not your own, of the origins, historical significance, and original theological meanings of their sacred writings This is a cogent criticism. In critical analysis it is called pointing out straw men.

If I had been trying to write an exhaustive, definitive treatment of the subject, then I would have needed at every turn to launch into a history of how LDS teachers have interpreted each and every passage of the LDS scriptures or of any statement made by Joseph Smith before venturing my own comments about the significance of such passages or statements. That would have made the work 3,000 pages long instead of 300 pages long. The Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide makes no such pretensions. It is not even a formal academic treatise.

In any case, it is not misrepresenting LDS beliefs to quote a passage from the Book of Mormon and assert that it means something that Mormons would themselves deny it means. If I had said, "Mormons say this passage in Alma means X" when Mormons don't say any such thing, then I would be guilty of misrepresenting LDS beliefs. But I did no such thing.

The reality is that your own religious leaders do not abide by this standard. They frequently comment on biblical texts and claim them as support for LDS doctrines and even cite them against orthodox Christian beliefs without so much as acknowledging that we have a different take on those texts. Mormons do this all the time on this forum. I have yet to see a thread in which any Mormon, for example, carefully reviewed orthodox interpretations of a biblical passage before arguing that it showed that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was false, or the evangelical view of justification through faith alone was wrong.

What really matters as far as I'm concerned is not whether those commenting on texts have first discussed the history of interpretation of those texts but whether their handling of the texts is cogent. If you want to critique my understanding of a Book of Mormon text, that's fine. It isn't really relevant to the topic of this thread, but I'm happy to discuss such interpretive questions. Again, the challenge was to read the Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide and fairly assess whether I at least tried to make a good-faith effort to understand and articulate LDS beliefs fairly. Playing "gotcha" with isolated points or complaining that I didn't discuss various LDS interpretations of each text I cited does not meet that challenge.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

It's misleading, though. Many of your readers may interpret "corporeal" to mean "tangible," "having a body," and will thus be misled to believe that the LDS teach that spirits are tangible, physical beings. This is not the case. To avoid confusion, it may be appropriate to change this.

No one would plausibly misunderstand me to be saying this if they actually read the whole page. I have no objection to constructive suggestions for clarifying or improving my wording, but what I said was not "misleading" and certainly doesn't qualify as an instance of me failing to make a good-faith effort to represent LDS beliefs fairly (the topic of this thread).

[Rob Bowman]

Jeremy,

You wrote:

God the Father is a Spirit, as stated in John 4:24. So is the Spirit of Wisdom. So is Christ. We are all Spirits. The glory of God is the Uncreated Intelligence which He, fundamentally, is - His Free Will. The same is true for all the rest of us. Doesn't mean we don't have physical bodies. Doesn't mean we can't metaphorically become One with each other in the At-one-ment, as Christ prayed for in John 17:22.

Your point is a fair one, from an LDS perspective. That is, the title "the Great Spirit" can be accommodated to the LDS theological position in the way you suggest. I think this probably works much better than trying to argue, as some have, that the title referred to the Son as distinct from the Father. However, the title can also function quite reasonably as part of a cumulative-case argument showing that in the 1820s and 1830s Joseph Smith regarded the Father as a being of spirit and not of flesh and bones. So far, none of the comments have addressed the issue in that context.

[LeSellers]

I have already refuted one of the allegations of error (regarding the word corporeal).

No.

You have rebutted the charge, not refuted it.

The word corporeal has a range of uses or meanings depending on context.

Indeed, as do many words.

However, the choice of this specific word in the context of spirits seems designed to misinform all the while using legitimate terminology. There are far better options that would say what you are telling us you meant that would not lead your readers to the conclusion that our knowledge of spirits is a self-contradiction.

A lie, I am told, is any attempt to mislead, even if it is not, strictly speaking, untrue. This is one example of distorting truth for nefarious ends.

A truth that's told with bad intent

Beats all the lies you can invent.

Lehi

[wenglund]

If I had been trying to write an exhaustive, definitive treatment of the subject, then I would have needed at every turn to launch into a history of how LDS teachers have interpreted each and every passage of the LDS scriptures or of any statement made by Joseph Smith.

That depends on the objective of your treatise. If your objective is to fairly represent LDS beliefs, and since you are not LDS, then launching into a history of how LDS interprete LDS scriptures, or at the very least setting forth an interpretation that is generally agreed upon among LDS, would be appropriate.

However, if your intent is clearly to set forth your own non-LDS, private interpretation of LDS scriptures and doctrines, then what you are doing is perfectly acceptable.

Where things become problematic is when you do the latter under the guise of doing the former.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LeSellers]

If your objective is to fairly represent LDS beliefs, and since you are not LDS, then launching into a history of how LDS interpret LDS scriptures, or at the very least setting forth an interpretation that is generally agreed upon among LDS ...

if [Mr. Bowman's/IRR's] intent is clearly to set forth your own non-LDS, private interpretation of LDS scriptures and doctrines, then what you are doing is perfectly acceptable.

Where things become problematic is when you do the latter under the guise of doing the former.

Or wink and nod while the audience believes he has done the former while actually doing the latter. It is clear that Mr. Bowman's intent is to present his interpretation of our scriptures and other writings as though they were our beliefs, so that people reading his private (and erroneous) interpretations will assume his position in what we do believe.

Lehi

[ERayR]

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).

And this gives him license to distort Mormon doctrine and refuse to correct his distortions?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I don't see where the verse in 3rd Nephi teaches that men will beome Gods, but more power to you.

[ERayR]

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.

I

Mike

Not trying to be snarky but reading does not always equate to study and understanding. A good bit of pondering and personal revelation need be involved. That is why one can spend a lifetime and still be finding new enlightenment.

[wenglund]

However, the title can also function quite reasonably as part of a cumulative-case argument showing that in the 1820s and 1830s Joseph Smith regarded the Father as a being of spirit and not of flesh and bones. So far, none of the comments have addressed the issue in that context.

Why is an exchange between Ammon and the Lamanites being used "as part of a cumulative-case argument showing" what Joseph believed during the 1820s and 30s? Rather, I would think that, logically, such a cumulative-case argument ought to entail what Joseph, during that time frame, had actually said he believed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 17, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

[delete duplicate post]

Edited January 17, 2012 by wenglund

[ERayR]

Wade,

If I had been trying to write an exhaustive, definitive treatment of the subject, then I would have needed at every turn to launch into a history of how LDS teachers have interpreted each and every passage of the LDS scriptures or of any statement made by Joseph Smith before venturing my own comments about the significance of such passages or statements. That would have made the work 3,000 pages long instead of 300 pages long. The Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide makes no such pretensions. It is not even a formal academic treatise.

In any case, it is not misrepresenting LDS beliefs to quote a passage from the Book of Mormon and assert that it means something that Mormons would themselves deny it means. If I had said, "Mormons say this passage in Alma means X" when Mormons don't say any such thing, then I would be guilty of misrepresenting LDS beliefs. But I did no such thing.

The reality is that your own religious leaders do not abide by this standard. They frequently comment on biblical texts and claim them as support for LDS doctrines and even cite them against orthodox Christian beliefs without so much as acknowledging that we have a different take on those texts. Mormons do this all the time on this forum. I have yet to see a thread in which any Mormon, for example, carefully reviewed orthodox interpretations of a biblical passage before arguing that it showed that the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was false, or the evangelical view of justification through faith alone was wrong.

What really matters as far as I'm concerned is not whether those commenting on texts have first discussed the history of interpretation of those texts but whether their handling of the texts is cogent. If you want to critique my understanding of a Book of Mormon text, that's fine. It isn't really relevant to the topic of this thread, but I'm happy to discuss such interpretive questions. Again, the challenge was to read the Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide and fairly assess whether I at least tried to make a good-faith effort to understand and articulate LDS beliefs fairly. Playing "gotcha" with isolated points or complaining that I didn't discuss various LDS interpretations of each text I cited does not meet that challenge.

Why do you need to define Mormonism through the prism of your disbelief? There are plenty of definitions of Mormonism written by knowledgable believers in Mormonism which gives a much more accurate picture. It is disingenuous at the least to assert that you know more about Mormon doctrine than they.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

This criticism is just silly. The word has a perfectly acceptable meaning that does not conflict with the LDS doctrinal position. I explain in detail in that very web page what the LDS position is, so anyone who simply reads the page will know that I am not suggesting that Mormons believe spirit bodies are physical. Yet you not only complain that the word might be misunderstood (a somewhat plausible concern with regard to the careless reader who doesn't finish reading the page) but accuse me of deliberately misleading and lying with this one word for "nefarious" purposes (which is not plausible at all).

If this is the best you guys can do, you're wasting your time and effort. Of course, it's your time and effort to waste.

No.

You have rebutted the charge, not refuted it.

Indeed, as do many words.

However, the choice of this specific word in the context of spirits seems designed to misinform all the while using legitimate terminology. There are far better options that would say what you are telling us you meant that would not lead your readers to the conclusion that our knowledge of spirits is a self-contradiction.

A lie, I am told, is any attempt to mislead, even if it is not, strictly speaking, untrue. This is one example of distorting truth for nefarious ends.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

Your post poses a false dichotomy. My intention in the study guide is to provide an evangelical critique of LDS teachings that is based on a fair-minded, accurate description of LDS beliefs as found in Gospel Principles. I am not claiming to refute every explanation used by Mormons to make the doctrine of the Book of Mormon seem to cohere with the doctrine of the contemporary LDS Church, nor do I need to do so in order to present a responsible, fair-minded critique of LDS doctrine.

That depends on the objective of your treatise. If your objective is to fairly represent LDS beliefs, and since you are not LDS, then launching into a history of how LDS interprete LDS scriptures, or at the very least setting forth an interpretation that is generally agreed upon among LDS, would be appropriate.

However, if your intent is clearly to set forth your own non-LDS, private interpretation of LDS scriptures and doctrines, then what you are doing is perfectly acceptable.

Where things become problematic is when you do the latter under the guise of doing the former.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

Why is an exchange between Ammon and the Lamanites being used "as part of a cumulative-case argument showing" what Joseph believed during the 1820s and 30s? Rather, I would think that, logically, such a cumulative-case argument ought to entail what Joseph, during that time frame, had actually said he believed.

And it does. Try reading the rest of the argument!

[Rob Bowman]

ERayR,

You wrote:

It is disingenuous at the least to assert that you know more about Mormon doctrine than they.

CFR that I ever asserted this.

[wenglund]

If this is the best you guys can do, you're wasting your time and effort. Of course, it's your time and effort to waste.

True. Even worse, our wasted time and effort may have inadvertently endowed your website with undue significance or importance. What is wrong with us?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 17, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

And it does. Try reading the rest of the argument!

Even assuming you are correct, this doesn't answer my question.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

ERayR,

You wrote:

CFR that I ever asserted this.

Your work is the answer to this CFR.

[wenglund]

Wade,

Your post poses a false dichotomy.

No. My post hypothetically juxtaposed two potentially competing objectives. Nowhere in my post will you find me restricting the possible objectives to just those two.

My intention in the study guide is to provide an evangelical critique of LDS teachings that is based on a fair-minded, accurate description of LDS beliefs as found in Gospel Principles.

Yet, your perception of a fair-minded and accurate description of LDS beliefs is frequently at odds with what those of us who are actually LDS would consider an accurate description of our LDS beliefs. Reasonably, this should give you pause to reconsider, but it doesn't.

I am not claiming to refute every explanation used by Mormons to make the doctrine of the Book of Mormon seem to cohere with the doctrine of the contemporary LDS Church, nor do I need to do so in order to present a responsible, fair-minded critique of LDS doctrine.

True. However, if a non-LDS wishes to be responsible and fair-minded in his critique of LDS doctrines and beliefs, then logically, at the very least he would present the LDS beliefs and doctrines in a way that would generally be recognizable to, and agreeable to, LDS. Otherwise, it amounts to critiquing a straw man.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-