Institute for Religious Research Study Guide Challenge

[wenglund]

In my reply to Deborah, I tried to explain why this seems very problematic in historical context. I gave two reasons. First, Joseph Smith lied in 1844 when he claimed he had been teaching plurality of Gods for fifteen years (i.e., since 1829 or 1830). You yourself acknowledge (see below) that Joseph "certainly was not advocating a plurality of Gods at the beginning." And that's correct. But Joseph claimed that he did. Your explanation for why you don't see this as a lie comes up further below and I'll try to cover it as I come to it. Second, Joseph's beliefs in 1829 should have had no significant influence on the theology of the Book of Mormon, if he was simply the inspired translator as he claimed. But the theology of the Book of Mormon is even more explicitly monotheistic than that of the Bible!

I went to your website to see what evidence you proferred for suggesting that Joseph was monotheistic in his beliefs during the 1820s and 1830s. With the exception of the quote from the Lectures on Faith (considered by LDS scholars to have been stated by Sidney Rigdon rather than Joseph Smith), the rest were revelations:

a) Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen. (Doctrine & Covenants 20:17, 28; see also 39:1; 61:1; 76:4; Moses 6:7; 7:29, 31)

b) They are called “God” or “the Father” and his “Only Begotten” or “the Son” in the Book of Moses (1:6, 13, 16, 17, 21, 32, 33; 2:1, 26, 27; 3:18; 4:1, 3, 28; 5:7, 9, 57; 6:52, 57, 59, 62; 7:50, 59, 62; see also Doctrine & Covenants 20:21; 29:42, 46; 49:5; 76:13, 23-25, 35, 57).

Aside from your conflating Joseph's expressed beliefs with revelations he received, there is the obvious problem with your take on these passages. These passages were believed to be true by Joseph even up until his death, and they are believed by LDS today. As such, there was no change in Joseph's or our belief in this regard.

So, by virtue of his and our continued belief in the verity of these scriptures, either Joseph and we LDS have always been monothiestic and held a "biblical and traditional Christian worldview" of God, and/or Joseph and we LDS have always interpreted these passages differently than you, in a non-monotheistic (traditionally speaking) sense.

Speaking as an LDS, I can assure you that it is the latter. Joseph continued, and we LDS now continue, to believe and teach both that there is "one God" and that there are "multiple Gods."

As such, you are mistaken in assuming a change in this belief as well as wrong when accusing Joseph of lying. To present it otherwise is to misrepresent Joseph's and our LDS beliefs.

Consider this yet another example in fulfillment of your request.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

Rob- can you point to a single example of your website presentation where you found you were inaccurate or incorrect that has now been corrected using information garnered in these discussions?

Thanks

[Bikeemikey]

I realize that Rob Bowman has obviously overtime really frustrated a number of board members here. That said, is argument and discussion as presented around this issue is interesting. In way is it undermining my belief in JS as a prophet or the gospel, or the church for that matter. It is really boring when people on this forum insist on attacking the person, not the argument.

Rob Bowman has an agenda.

He wants to demonstrate the church is false.

He is using the method of undermining the character of Joseph Smith to fulfill this goal.

If you don't like that stay out of the conversation/discussion. Don't get upset with his agenda when it is obvious and clear as day.

The evidence he is discussing does support his claims, because of the way he wants to read it. The same evidence does not support his claims because of the way we are insisting on reading it.

Lets see if there is anything we can actually learn something interesting from the evidence presented by Bowman. I think we can learn all sorts of things that still allow us to keep our faith in JS and the Church. If you feel that is not the case then you probably shouldn't be reading his thoughts!!!

Mike

Edited January 18, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Bill Hamblin]

As usual, Bowman is engaged in a double standard. He consistently harmonizes his 21st-century evangelical interpretations of Christianity, while consistently insisting that Mormon history and scripture must be examined from the standpoint of diversity and change through time.

This simply won't do. The reality, of course, is that we should try to balance conceptions of harmonization and diversity as they develop through time. All religions have diversity and change through time, while at the same time exhibiting consistency in harmony within their ideas. It is simply faulty methodology to insist that Mormonism does not fall this natural pattern of all other religions, but consists solely of radical change.

For example, in the New Testament it is impossible to find any passage where the Holy Ghost is described as God. The one possible passage is one John 5:7, which does not occur in the earliest manuscripts. Scholars have universally concluded that this was added later to the text. If you examine the earliest Christian documents outside of the New Testament, you find the same thing. This is led scholars like Larry Hurtado to conclude that the early Christians were been binitarian (One God, One Lord 2nd. ed. (2003); Lord Jesus Christ (2005)). The New Testament also consistently talks about there being one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. Yet I'm sure Bowman would claim that his 21st-century Evangelical trinitarianism is not only entirely consistent with the New Testament, but is the only logical interpretation of the New Testament. Applying Bowman's hypercritical methodology to the New Testament, as consistently as he applies it to the teachings of Joseph Smith, makes this type of claim impossible.

Take another example. In the Nicene Creed it states: "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church." I suspect that Bowman recites this regularly as part of his evangelical Christian worship. Does Bowman really believe in the Catholic Church? In the 4th century when the creed was formulated this phrase was in a sense a loyalty oath required by Christians to demonstrate their support of the Imperial church of the Roman Empire. How can Bowman claim to accept the Nicene Creed when he rejects the authority and traditions of the Catholic or Greek orthodox offshoots of the Imperial church of the 4th century?

All I'm asking for here is simply a consistent and balanced use of methodology by Bowman. He can't apply one method to his evangelical theology and another to the teachings of Joseph Smith and LDS Scripture. Well, actually he can. He does all the time. However, he can't do it while maintaining intellectual and spiritual integrity.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

Thanks for jumping into this discussion. You wrote:

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.

Of course, that's not how the Athenians would have understood Paul. They would have understood him as talking about an unknown god in addition to their other gods, not as a replacement of their other gods. Nothing Paul says in his sermon is inconsistent with this interpretation, and intentionally so.

The fact that Paul adapts his presentation to his audience is hardly unexpected. The fact that you won't permit similar diversity within LDS scripture an theology is rather unfortunate. Change through time in biblical and Evangelical teachings must always be harmonized, while the same phenomena in LDS teaching must never be harmonized.

[Bill Hamblin]

Considere 3 Nephi 28:10

And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;

This passage certainly seems to teach deification, and hence a potential plurality of gods. Why, then, do you insist that Joseph was lying when he said he had always taught that principle? Here it is, in 1829.

[Vance]

For example, in the New Testament it is impossible to find any passage where the Holy Ghost is described as God.

This is perfectly correct.

And it is also a good example of how "historic orthodox Christians" read their preconceived notions INTO the text instead of letting the text (through the Holy Spirit) speak to them.

The notion of the Holy Ghost being God does NOT come from the Bible. It is strictly an extra-Biblical notion. Even though it is true in some respects.

[Vance]

And yes, I am one of those posters that Bowman ignores because I pester him for answers to questions.

Tis a double standard he employes. He insists that all his questions be answered to his satisfaction, but he is unwilling (or unable) to allow us the same consideration (without exposing the fatal flaws in his own theology).

[Kevin Christensen]

Rob says:

Between 1820 and 1838 we do not have a gap of no writings from Joseph; to the contrary, we have a steady stream of writings, a paper trail, from 1829 right through 1838. There is no mention of this event anywhere before 1838 except for a handwritten account from 1832 that was put away without anyone besides Joseph and his scribe ever seeing it and that never saw the light of day until 1965. The 1832 account doesn't mention the Father at all.

Among other things, Rob is forgetting this from 9 November, 1835.

and I called on the Lord in mighty prayer, a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon me head, and filled me with Joy unspeakable, a personage appeard in the midst of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; and I saw many angels in this vision I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication;

http://en.fairmormon...n_accounts/1835

The only role the Father plays in this account, as he does in the New Testament accounts of Jesus's baptism, and in the appearance of the Risen Jesus in 3 Nephi, it so bear witness. So it helps to notice the phrase at the start of the 1832 account:

A History of the life of Joseph Smith jr. an account of his marvilous experience and of all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Ch[r]ist the son of the living God of whom he beareth record and also an account of the rise of the church of Christ in the eve of time according as the Lord brought forth and established by his hand firstly he receiving the testamony from on high seccondly the ministering of Aangels thirdly the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels...

Who provided testimony from on high? What makes the most sense in light of not only the 1835 and 1838 accounts, for instance, but also the scriptural record?

Matthew Brown discussed this passage during an important FAIR presentation:

http://www.fairlds.o...al_Stories.html

As you can tell by now, JS 1832 is no ordinary text. Even though it is relatively short in length, it is deliberately assembled and tightly structured, which more than anything explains why certain details of the First Vision story were left out of it.

This brings us to the most frequent anti-Mormon criticism about JS 1832. God the Father is obviously not mentioned as making an appearance to Joseph Smith in this First Vision account. I would like to suggest, however, that all this time we as Latter-day Saints have not recognized that God the Father's appearance is, in fact, referred to right in this document. This has occurred, I believe, because we have been looking in the wrong place.

In the introductory remarks of JS 1832 Joseph Smith outlined precisely how he was about to proceed in the narration of his history. He mentioned that the very first incident associated with his "marvelous experience" in the Restoration was that he received "the testimony from on high." Because of the formatting of the introductory paragraph and the structure of the text which follows it, it can be concluded with a marked degree of certainty that this testimony was connected with the First Vision. The question to ask, then, is, What was the "testimony from on high" that Joseph Smith received during the First Vision? This question is easily answered by referring to another First Vision recital given by the Prophet in November 1835. There he states that one of the two personages who appeared unto him testified that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. In JS 1838 (which is the First Vision narrative now published in the Pearl of Great Price) we learn that one of the personages testified to Joseph using the following words, "This is my beloved Son." We may comfortably conclude from this documentary evidence that the "testimony from on high" of JS 1832 is equivalent to the phrase spoken by God the Father in JS 1838. Therefore, we may safely say that when Joseph Smith wrote the 1832 account of the First Vision the appearance of God the Father was definitely in his mind—because he obliquely refers to it. It seems that he did not make an explicit mention of this part of the story simply because he had chosen to use the apostle Paul's experience as the main framework for that portion of his narrative—and Paul only saw Jesus Christ.

And later in the 1832 account:

piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the Lord {this word is an above line insert} opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph my son thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy way walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life...

James Allen, in his 1970 Improvement Era article on the First Vision accounts suggested that the title Lord here is applied to two different figures. One that opens the heavens, and another that is the primary speaker. If the inserted "Lord" had instead been "God", we'd not have the same controversy that we do now.

I also like this essay on "Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths" by Bruening and Paulson

http://maxwellinstit...13&num=2&id=392

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited January 18, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob says:

Among other things, Rob is forgetting this from 9 November, 1835.

http://en.fairmormon...n_accounts/1835

The only role the Father plays in this account, as he does in the New Testament accounts of Jesus's baptism, and in the appearance of the Risen Jesus in 3 Nephi, it so bear witness. So it helps to notice the phrase at the start of the 1832 account:

Who provided witness from on high? What makes the most sense in light of not only the 1835 and 1838 accounts, for instance, but also the scriptural record?

Matthew Brown discussed this passage during an important FAIR presentation:

http://www.fairlds.o...al_Stories.html

And later in the 1832 account:

James Allen, in his 1970 Improvement Era article on the First Vision accounts suggested that the title Lord here is applied to two different figures. One that opens the heavens, and another that is the primary speaker. If the inserted "Lord" had instead been "God", we'd not have the same controversy that we do now.

I also like this essay on "Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths" by Bruening and Paulson

http://maxwellinstit...13&num=2&id=392

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Precisely. Bowman's approach not only relies a hypercritical double standard, but ignores these types of nuanced interpretations by LDS.

[Rob Bowman]

For those who think my reference to spirit bodies in LDS doctrine as "corporeal" was a nefarious deception, you may be interested to know that I have revised the web page to eliminate the basis for this silly criticism. The offending sentence now says:

"The LDS Church teaches that spirits are beings with bodies composed of spirit, a finer form of matter."

[LeSellers]

For those who think my reference to spirit bodies in LDS doctrine as "corporeal" was a nefarious deception, you may be interested to know that I have revised the web page to eliminate the basis for this silly criticism. The offending sentence now says:

"The LDS Church teaches that spirits are beings with bodies composed of spirit, a finer form of matter."

I am impressed.

Now, are the Temple ordinances still on your site?

Lehi

[Vance]

For those who think my reference to spirit bodies in LDS doctrine as "corporeal" was a nefarious deception, . . .

As if removing the evidence somehow changes the motives behind it.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You wrote:

I am impressed.

Now, are the Temple ordinances still on your site?

As far as I am concerned, your comment here is simply harassment, and I will report it as such. We have already hashed out the issue of the one web page on our site that has the text of the temple endowment ordinance. I listened to the criticisms, I discussed them with our staff, I posted a statement on that page to acknowledge the sensitivity of the material, that satisfied almost no one here, I have been prohibited from linking to any articles on our site but everyone here is free to attack it, and from time to time Mormons like you use the issue to take irrelevant pot-shots at me, usually in order to deflect attention from the actual issue at hand. Enough is enough.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

Let me get right to the core point of your post. You wrote:

Speaking as an LDS, I can assure you that it is the latter. Joseph continued, and we LDS now continue, to believe and teach both that there is "one God" and that there are "multiple Gods."

As such, you are mistaken in assuming a change in this belief as well as wrong when accusing Joseph of lying. To present it otherwise is to misrepresent Joseph's and our LDS beliefs.

I am not concerned at this point about your personal beliefs or the beliefs of other Mormons today. The specific issue here is what Joseph Smith said. Joseph did not say that he believed both in "one God" and in "multiple Gods." He did not make any equivalent statement to that effect. Quite to the contrary, he rejected the idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were "one God." Here is what he said:

"I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has always been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit, and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.... Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow--three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization.... All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 370, 372, emphasis added).

In the above sermon, Joseph asserted that he had always declared and preached "three Gods," and he ridiculed the idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one God." He did not say, "Yes, they are one God, but they are also three Gods. Isn't that profound?" No. He affirmed that they are three Gods and scorned the notion that they are one God.

You are absolutely free to affirm contradictories or to equivocate in your own doctrinal formulations. However, as a simple matter of historical fact, Joseph never affirmed at the same time that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were one God and that they were three Gods. Instead, he started out teaching that they were one God and by the end of his life was explicitly teaching that they were not one God but three Gods. Worse still, if it can get worse, he lied by claiming that his teaching that they were three Gods was nothing different from what he had always taught. I don't make this accusation lightly. I try to give the benefit of the doubt wherever I plausibly can. But here? Sorry, as best I can see, Joseph lied. Feel free to try to convince me otherwise; I am always open to new perspectives and new arguments. But at this point I really don't see a plausible way out of the problem for you.

[altersteve]

For those who think my reference to spirit bodies in LDS doctrine as "corporeal" was a nefarious deception, you may be interested to know that I have revised the web page to eliminate the basis for this silly criticism. The offending sentence now says:

"The LDS Church teaches that spirits are beings with bodies composed of spirit, a finer form of matter."

I am sorry if I gave the impression that I thought the way it was before was a "nefarious deception." I only meant to point out that it could mislead some readers; no harm intended.

[altersteve]

In the above sermon, Joseph asserted that he had always declared and preached "three Gods," and he ridiculed the idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one God." He did not say, "Yes, they are one God, but they are also three Gods. Isn't that profound?" No. He affirmed that they are three Gods and scorned the notion that they are one God.

From what I understand, Joseph was simply criticizing the idea that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are literally "crammed into one God." He wasn't ridiculing the doctrine of a metaphorical oneness between three separate beings as taught in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Also, I disagree with your conclusion that he lied. He never taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "crammed into one God," and he clearly understood the three of them to be distinct and separate from each other after his First Vision. In my opinion, he had in fact always taught a plurality of gods, even though he may not have always used that terminology.

I'm sure you won't accept this explanation since you don't believe Joseph had the First Vision, but hopefully you understand that it makes perfect sense from the LDS perspective.

Edited January 18, 2012 by altersteve

[mfbukowski]

For those who think my reference to spirit bodies in LDS doctrine as "corporeal" was a nefarious deception, you may be interested to know that I have revised the web page to eliminate the basis for this silly criticism. The offending sentence now says:

"The LDS Church teaches that spirits are beings with bodies composed of spirit, a finer form of matter."

Thanks for the improvement.

Does this mean you are speaking to me now?

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

As usual, Bowman is engaged in a double standard.

I have a couple of beefs with you about this opening shot, Bill. First of all, I am a participant in this thread; why not address me directly? Feel free to criticize me to me face, cyberspatially speaking. Second, it is really annoying and unnecessarily offensive to poison the well by that "as usual" barb. I have a lot of respect for your knowledge and ability, and am quite happy to receive constructive criticism from you. How about you approach me in that fashion instead of smugly playing to the crowd?

You wrote:

He consistently harmonizes his 21st-century evangelical interpretations of Christianity, while consistently insisting that Mormon history and scripture must be examined from the standpoint of diversity and change through time.

Huh? I'd issue a CFR if I knew what in the world you were saying. What do you mean about me harmonizing 21st-century evangelical interpretations of Christianity? If the rest of your post is supposed to give examples, I don't see how they relate to the point you seem to be making here.

You wrote:

This simply won't do. The reality, of course, is that we should try to balance conceptions of harmonization and diversity as they develop through time. All religions have diversity and change through time, while at the same time exhibiting consistency in harmony within their ideas. It is simply faulty methodology to insist that Mormonism does not fall this natural pattern of all other religions, but consists solely of radical change.

Now here I can issue a CFR. I don't think I have ever suggested or implied, let alone insisted, that Mormonism never exhibits some consistency over time or that it consists solely of radical change.

For example, in the New Testament it is impossible to find any passage where the Holy Ghost is described as God.

Acts 5:3-4.

The one possible passage is one John 5:7, which does not occur in the earliest manuscripts. Scholars have universally concluded that this was added later to the text. If you examine the earliest Christian documents outside of the New Testament, you find the same thing. This is led scholars like Larry Hurtado to conclude that the early Christians were been binitarian (One God, One Lord 2nd. ed. (2003); Lord Jesus Christ (2005)). The New Testament also consistently talks about there being one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. Yet I'm sure Bowman would claim that his 21st-century Evangelical trinitarianism is not only entirely consistent with the New Testament, but is the only logical interpretation of the New Testament.

Well, you're ignoring not only Acts 5:3-4 but a whole slew of NT textual support for the idea of the Holy Spirit as a third divine person, distinct from the Father and the Son. I'll bet you could cite some yourself.

Take another example. In the Nicene Creed it states: "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church." I suspect that Bowman recites this regularly as part of his evangelical Christian worship. Does Bowman really believe in the Catholic Church? In the 4th century when the creed was formulated this phrase was in a sense a loyalty oath required by Christians to demonstrate their support of the Imperial church of the Roman Empire. How can Bowman claim to accept the Nicene Creed when he rejects the authority and traditions of the Catholic or Greek orthodox offshoots of the Imperial church of the 4th century?

Actually, most Protestant evangelical churches are non-liturgical and rarely if ever recite any of the creeds. Baptist churches, such as my home church, never do. The Apostles Creed also contains an affirmation of the "catholic church," although the textual history of the creed is so uncertain that I don't know when that particular line of the creed originated. My guess is that the line dates from the late second century, but that's just a guess. In any case, Protestant evangelicals differ from Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians as to the sense in which the church is properly described as "catholic" or "apostolic." For those communions these terms refer to the ecclesiastical authority of the churches under the administration of bishops who trace their authority back to the apostles (so-called apostolic succession). The church is "catholic" if it is part of the worldwide system of churches so administered, and "apostolic" if its ordinations trace back to the apostles. For Protestants, the church is "catholic" if it is part of the worldwide body of Christ that transcends denominations and other human organizations, and it is "apostolic" if it is faithful to the teachings of the apostles in the NT. You say this isn't what the terms originally meant in the Nicene Creed? That would be problematic for us Protestants only if we claimed that the Nicene Creed was an inspired, prophetic, or revealed text given through men with prophetic authority. We don't. We have no qualms about disagreeing with our fourth-century or fourteenth-century forebears where we think we have good reasons for doing so. We Protestants are not stuck with the church fathers in the same way that Mormons are stuck with Joseph Smith!

All I'm asking for here is simply a consistent and balanced use of methodology by Bowman. He can't apply one method to his evangelical theology and another to the teachings of Joseph Smith and LDS Scripture. Well, actually he can. He does all the time. However, he can't do it while maintaining intellectual and spiritual integrity.

Hopefully I have explained why your accusations of inconsistency are unfounded. I respectfully request that you apologize for impugning my "intellectual and spiritual integrity." If I had said something like that about one of you, we all know what expressions of outrage would have ensued.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Considere 3 Nephi 28:10 This passage certainly seems to teach deification, and hence a potential plurality of gods. Why, then, do you insist that Joseph was lying when he said he had always taught that principle? Here it is, in 1829.

I think I discussed this passage in an earlier thread. It might be construed to teach something that one might choose to label "deification" (though I would not) but it does not actually claim that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three Gods rather than one God. The lie was in Joseph's claiming that he had always taught "the plurality of Gods" in that context.

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

Thanks for your post. I will respond as soon as I can. I've been rather inundated lately.

[mfbukowski]

Nevermind.

Edited January 18, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Pahoran]

As if removing the evidence somehow changes the motives behind it.

Vance,

It seems a little unfair to ask Rob to correct an error, then say he's just "removing the evidence" when he does correct it.

Just a thought.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

I have a couple of beefs with you about this opening shot, Bill. First of all, I am a participant in this thread; why not address me directly? Feel free to criticize me to me face, cyberspatially speaking. Second, it is really annoying and unnecessarily offensive to poison the well by that "as usual" barb. I have a lot of respect for your knowledge and ability, and am quite happy to receive constructive criticism from you. How about you approach me in that fashion instead of smugly playing to the crowd?

You wrote:

Huh? I'd issue a CFR if I knew what in the world you were saying. What do you mean about me harmonizing 21st-century evangelical interpretations of Christianity? If the rest of your post is supposed to give examples, I don't see how they relate to the point you seem to be making here.

You wrote:

Now here I can issue a CFR. I don't think I have ever suggested or implied, let alone insisted, that Mormonism never exhibits some consistency over time or that it consists solely of radical change.

Acts 5:3-4.

Well, you're ignoring not only Acts 5:3-4 but a whole slew of NT textual support for the idea of the Holy Spirit as a third divine person, distinct from the Father and the Son. I'll bet you could cite some yourself.

Actually, most Protestant evangelical churches are non-liturgical and rarely if ever recite any of the creeds. Baptist churches, such as my home church, never do. The Apostles Creed also contains an affirmation of the "catholic church," although the textual history of the creed is so uncertain that I don't know when that particular line of the creed originated. My guess is that the line dates from the late second century, but that's just a guess. In any case, Protestant evangelicals differ from Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians as to the sense in which the church is properly described as "catholic" or "apostolic." For those communions these terms refer to the ecclesiastical authority of the churches under the administration of bishops who trace their authority back to the apostles (so-called apostolic succession). The church is "catholic" if it is part of the worldwide system of churches so administered, and "apostolic" if its ordinations trace back to the apostles. For Protestants, the church is "catholic" if it is part of the worldwide body of Christ that transcends denominations and other human organizations, and it is "apostolic" if it is faithful to the teachings of the apostles in the NT. You say this isn't what the terms originally meant in the Nicene Creed? That would be problematic for us Protestants only if we claimed that the Nicene Creed was an inspired, prophetic, or revealed text given through men with prophetic authority. We don't. We have no qualms about disagreeing with our fourth-century or fourteenth-century forebears where we think we have good reasons for doing so. We Protestants are not stuck with the church fathers in the same way that Mormons are stuck with Joseph Smith!

Hopefully I have explained why your accusations of inconsistency are unfounded. I respectfully request that you apologize for impugning my "intellectual and spiritual integrity." If I had said something like that about one of you, we all know what expressions of outrage would have ensued.

In fact, what you've said in this post has demonstrated my claim. With biblical texts you ALWAYS harmonize and assume the best. With LDS texts you are ALWAYS hypercritical and assume the worst. Your approach to the two traditions is completely inconsistent. The fact that you can't see it just shows how much your world view is permeated by these assumptions.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

I have a couple of beefs with you about this opening shot, Bill. First of all, I am a participant in this thread; why not address me directly? Feel free to criticize me to me face, cyberspatially speaking. Second, it is really annoying and unnecessarily offensive to poison the well by that "as usual" barb. I have a lot of respect for your knowledge and ability, and am quite happy to receive constructive criticism from you. How about you approach me in that fashion instead of smugly playing to the crowd?

How about this. When you stop attacking my beliefs and desecrating things I hold sacred (like the endowment), and calling my prophet a liar, I'll stop saying that your anti-Mormon behavior is "as usual."