Institute for Religious Research Study Guide Challenge

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

Acts 5:3-4 does not say that the Holy Spirit is God. To say that you are lying to Fred, and lying to George does not mean that George and Fred are the same person. Nor, if George is God, does it imply that Fred is God.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Bill Hamblin

[Bill Hamblin]

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!

In the context of the Nicene Creed, the "one catholic and apostolic church" can only mean the imperial church. To claim that you accept the Nicene Creed because to you it "catholic and apostolic" means something different is blatant equivocation. Why not simply admit that Protestants reject the Nicene Creed?

[Pahoran]

Lehi,

You wrote:

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,

Well, duh!

What actually did you expect, Rob? Were we supposed to say something like, "Hey, you're still parading our sacred ordinances for the idle entertainment of the jeering hecklers, but you've paid lip service to the notion that the stuff is 'sensitive' so that makes it all okay?"

So you "discussed them with your staff," did you? And what exactly did you expect them to say? "Oh yes, we should really start respecting matters that are sacred to non-EV's." Now there's a Tui Billboard in the making!

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, if you want to be allowed to link to your website, you know what to do, don't you?

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

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.

No. The specific issue here is what Joseph meant. It is question of interpretation--as is typically the case with you.

As Bill pointed out, there is a reasonable way to harmonize the earlier revelations with the later statements from Joseph. It is the same reasonable way we LDS harmonize the same today (which is why current LDS beliefs are relevent, and why fair-minded people would be conserned).

Not that it may matter to you, the conventions of critical thought (compasionate recontruction in particular) suggest that if there is a reasonable way to harmonize an opposing view, then that is the way one ought to interpret it.

You, on the other hand, have chosen to interpret the various statements in question in the least compassionate and harshest way, selectively filtering the scriptures through your 21st century Evengelical lens, while interpreting Joseph's later statement otherwise.

It is no wonder, then, that you would conclude that Joseph lied. However, from where I am sitting, that says more about you than it does about him.

The thing is, as previously intimated, I, and most all believing LDS, can and have essentially, said and believe the same things as later quoted of Joseph, while also fervently believing the earlier quoted scriptures. As such, by your reasoning, you then must consider we LDS as lying. But, we aren't. Instead, you are mistaken about what and how we believe, and as a consequence, you mis-judge and mis-represent us--again, not that it may matter to you.

This has been spelled out to you time and time again, evidently without much affect, which is why it is pointless for us to attempt to engage you in a reasoned discussion--though I am open to being convinced otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bernard Gui]

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

What is there not to see? It cannot be stated more plainly.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

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.

You are new to the board, but should know it is not your place to tell participants what to do. It's unfortunate that after just a few posts, you find your faith shaken. I would not want that to happen. Did you know of Rob and his website before this thread?

Bernard

Edited January 19, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Rob...in the OP I provided a quote from your GP analysis. It claims the Book of Mormon repeatedly teaches that God the Father is a spirit. To prove this you refer to the discussion between two Nephite missionaries and Lamanite kings. The term "Great Spirit" is used. It is clear the term belongs to the Lamanites' apostate tradition, not to the Nephite teachings The Lamanites changed their terminology and understanding of God as a result of the Nephites' teaching. Do you accept this summary?

Are there any other BoM passages where the term "Great Spirit" is used to describe God the Father so as to justify your claim that it is taught repeatedly in the Book of Mormon?

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

It might be construed to teach something that one might choose to label "deification" (though I would not)...

This error was also pointed out in the OP. There is no clearer exposition of the LDS doctrine of exaltation than this:

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;

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Also, the OP corrects your claim that there is not even a suggestion in the Book of Mormon to support the doctrine of man's pre-mortal existence.

Bernard

Edited January 19, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Gervin]

You are new to the board, but should know it is not your place to tell participants what to do.

That's odd. People are always telling Rob Bowman what to do.

Rob, if you want to be allowed to link to your website, you know what to do, don't you?

Regards,

Pahoran

Oh, wait a minute. People aren't supposed to tell believing members of the LDS Church what to do. My bad.

[Vance]

Acts 5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

Well, if "the Holy Ghost" in verse 3 is the same entity as "God" in verse 4, then "Satan" in verse 3 is the same entity as thou (Ananias) in verse 4.

As ususal Bowman is forcing his own interpretation into the verse and to do so, he has to be inconsistent.

No surprise really.

[Vance]

Oh, wait a minute. People aren't supposed to tell believing members of the LDS Church what to do. My bad.

Hummm, when did asking the question "you know what to do, don't you?" turn into TELLING someone what to do?

[KevinG]

Gervin - if Rob wants to be able to link his site directly he must remove the Temple content due to the general ban on linking Temple content sites on MDB. That's what Pahoran was pointing out.

[mfbukowski]

Not sure if you all saw this, but it is a great article, and Mr Bowman would do well to read it.

This guy has a much better understanding of our theology than Bowman and just plain "gets" it, even though he is not a member, especially on the whole question of "spirit matter". He gets just enough of the details wrong so that we know he is a non-member, but the central core of his understanding is right on the money.

The most significant difference is that Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was never purely immaterial. Smith developed his materialistic interpretation of the spiritual realm mainly after the Book of Mormon, but it is anticipated in that book’s most extraordinary scene. In an appearance to the unnamed brother of Jared, Jesus is so sensitive to the overwhelming impression of his corporeal form that he reveals only his little finger. Jared’s brother says, “I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood” (Ether 3: . Later Jesus shows Jared’s brother his whole body, which, it turns out, is a pre-mortal spirit body, comprised of a finer material substance than anything known on earth.

http://www.firstthin...sed-with-christ

How come this guy gets it, and after all his study, Rob still doesn't?

It just shows how IRR-elevant that organization is.

Edited January 19, 2012 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

How come this guy gets it, and after all his study, Rob still doesn't?

Webb answers that, himself, by telling us he repented of his condescension.

It just shows how IRR-elevant that organization is.

LOL.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

That's odd. People are always telling Rob Bowman what to do.

Oh, wait a minute. People aren't supposed to tell believing members of the LDS Church what to do. My bad.

Yes, it is your bad. Because that was not a parallel case; I wasn't telling Rob Bowman what to do.

Rob had complained that he wasn't allowed to link to his website. I was simply pointing out that the solution to that problem rests entirely with him.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Hestia]

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.

Per Board Guidelines on what not to do: "Telling others how to behave. Anything you find objectionable should be reported using the button located in each post."

[mfbukowski]

Webb answers that, himself, by telling us he repented of his condescension.

A need that apparantly Rob doesn't even recognize.

Yet again we see the degree of consistency in Evangelical doctrine and orthopraxis.

And Rob complains that we have no consistent doctrine!

"One faith one Baptism"? Uh, I don't think so! For some reason I don't think Rob has made any converts here- all he has succeeded in doing is insulting people and giving his own church a black eye.

On the other hand, I think I could sincerely talk theology with a guy like Webb

Edit: And please note that his change in attitude was not soley "repentance", but finally an understanding of what we are really talking about.

I have come to repent of this view, and not just because I came to my senses about how wrong it is to be rude toward somebody else’s faith. I changed my mind because I came to realize just how deeply Christ-centered Mormonism is.

Rob could learn a lot from him

Edited January 19, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

You and Rob are certainly welcome to make whatever assertions you like, but it would be helpful if you could back them up with sound biblical and Book of Mormon exegesis. Bernard is pointing out some egregious errors in Rob's assemblage of claims that there are big theological discontinuities between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, along with discontinuities between Mormon theology & the Book of Mormon. Rob has said that he wants to know what the best LDS arguments are, so he should appreciate that.

My response is that the discontinuities do not exist except as misunderstandings (by evangelicals, for example) of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and for many of the same reasons in each case, i.e., the Book of Mormon and the Bible both contain the full Gospel of Jesus Christ, but it can only be seen by those with eyes to see. Even the mysteries and esoteric rites are there in both books, but hidden from those who will not see . . .

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.

The supposed moral equivalence does not exist. Trolling Mormon bookstores you will not find anti-evangelical books, nor any other unseemly diatribes against normative christians. However, trolling any "Christian bookstore," you will regularly find an anti-cult section in which long-discredited diatribes against Mormons can easily be found. The hate is palpable and completely unjustified. Evangelicals should be ashamed.

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).

If that is so, you are certainly both welcome. Rob has always been very much a gentleman, IMHO. Not everyone shares my view . . .

[mfbukowski]

... However, trolling any "Christian bookstore," you will regularly find an anti-cult section in which long-discredited diatribes against Mormons can easily be found. The hate is palpable and completely unjustified. Evangelicals should be ashamed.

And who writes these?

Rob has always been very much a gentleman, IMHO.

Can you see how those two statements might be seen as incompatible?

Not everyone shares my view . . .

Well on most things I certainly share your view, but on this..... not so much.

Edited January 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

And who writes these?

Can you see how those two statements might be seen as incompatible?

I find Rob Bowman to be a big improvement over the late Walter Martin, who is still in print in those anti-cult sections.

Well on most things I certainly share your view, but on this..... not so much.

Tu quoque

[mfbukowski]

I find Rob Bowman to be a big improvement over the late Walter Martin, who is still in print in those anti-cult sections.

But you know he is one of Martin's "descendents" right?

The upsurge of interest in Martin's work and CRI coincided with the Jesus People revolution, the counterculture, and the social conflicts over new cults in the 1970s.^[27] During the 1970s and 1980s a number of younger apologists were mentored by Martin through CRI and included Cal Beisner, Todd Ehrenborg, Craig Hawkins, Carole Hausmann, Kurt Van Gorden, John Weldon, George Mather, Paul Carden, Rich Poll, Robert M. Bowman, Jr., and Elliot Miller.^[28] The profile of CRI increased with the widespread sales of Martin's book The Kingdom of the Cults (now in the vicinity of some 750,000 copies sold), his audio-tape albums, his radio ministry, and his appearances on national television.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Research_Institute

[KevinG]

A kinder gentler countercult minister...

If it helps even with my sometimes animated discussions with Rob I don't attribute his misunderstanding of Mormonism to evil, more a case of genuinely believing what he has researched but just ain't so about us. That's why I recommend he take a more anthropological approach and study us in our real environment more. Attending a Sunday School session would teach volumes more than observing those of us who typically engage in debate over Mormon minutiae.

[wenglund]

I find Rob Bowman to be a big improvement over the late Walter Martin, who is still in print in those anti-cult sections.

A 2nd degree burn is an improvement over a 4th degree burn.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Attending a Sunday School session would teach volumes...

Uh, an understatement to be sure. The question becomes who would be "teaching" whom, and who would be calling 911.