Institute for Religious Research Study Guide Challenge

[ebeddoulos]

Gervin,

I know I am late into the discussion so pardon me for the intrusion. It appears that you may be talking past the others, rather than addressing the actual issue. It may be that the reverse is true as well. It seems as though you believe that the Holy Ghost is a third, distinct person apart from the Father and the Son. That is a good thing. That is sound LDS doctrine as well. No one is arguing that point. Period. End of discussion. We all, you included, appear to be in agreement on this point.

The point of disagreement is from what authority do you get your understanding and belief. Latter-day Saints arrive at the conclusion based on latter-day scripture and the interpretation of latter-day prophets. Why? Because the Bible has no single explicit Book-Chapter-Verse(s) citation which teaches the doctrine. One can amalgamate a bunch of Biblical verses and the read into the verses such an understanding if one really tries really hard. However, there are denominations that take the exact same Bible, amalgamate a bunch of verses, try really hard and manage to reach the exact opposite conclusion. The United Church of Christ, God's Church Worldwide, Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses come most readily to mind.

Harold O.J. Brown's Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church rather nicely explains the who's, how's,and why's that the Bible can be interpreted to deny the Holy Ghost as a divine personage. Brown was (he recently passed) a respected evangelical scholar who earned four degrees from Harvard University and Harvard Divinity School. He taught at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois, and at Reformed Theological Seminary. In the above mention book, he wrote:

"The language of the New Testament permits the Holy Spirit to be understood as an impersonal force or influence more readily than it does the Son...The attempt to develop an understanding of the Holy Spirit consistent with the trinitarian passages...came to fruition at Constantinople in 381. There were a number of reasons why the personhood of the Holy Spirit took longer to acknowledge than the Son: (1) the term pneuma, breath, is neuter in general and impersonal in ordinary meaning; (2) the distinctive work of the Holy Spirit, influencing the believer, does not necessarily seem as personal as that of the Father...in addition, those who saw the Holy Spirit as a Person, were often heretical, for example, the Montanists; (3) many of the early theologians attributed to the Logos or Word, the revelatory activity later theologians saw as the special, personal work of the Holy Spirit." (Harold O.J. Brown, "Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church", Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, [1988], pg. 140)

I believe that what others are asking you to provide is one single Biblical citation which explicitly states that the Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead - or trinity if you so prefer. I personally believe, based on much personal study, that such a Bible proof-text does not exist. That said, I would be most grateful if you know of one because it would be of value when discussing the subject with others. Thus far, what you have provided simply does not qualify. Good luck in your search.

[Vance]

Pres. Hinckley said, "The Holy Ghost stands as the third member of the Godhead."

Do you believe he meant that the third member of the Godhead is distinct and divine? If not, please explain. His reference verse for his statement was John 14:26.

I'd like to understand how you believe Pres. Hinckley used the verse I gave you.

I'm fairly sure I've never shared with you "my doctrine" but I think a better understanding of the verse at hand is more beneficial.

President Hinckley used the verse I provided in defense of his statement that "The Holy Ghost stands as the third member of the Godhead .." If you don't believe the Holy Ghost is divine, then why did he say what he said?

Others have addressed this already so I won't belabor it.

The source of my discomfort was actually these verses:

Matthew 12:31-32

31 "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.

32 "And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the {age} to come.

Mark 3:28-30

28 "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter;

29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"--

30 because they were saying, "He has an unclean spirit."

Luke 12:10

10 "And everyone who will speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him.

Rather than assume what it is that causes you discomfort with these verses, I will let you get more specific.

But again, I would point out that these verses do not declare the divinity of the Holy Ghost.

I tend to agree ... I'm a work in progress

You are not alone.

[Gervin]

Gervin,

I know I am late into the discussion so pardon me for the intrusion.

We're both late; I only started 11 posts before you.

It appears that you may be talking past the others, rather than addressing the actual issue. It may be that the reverse is true as well. It seems as though you believe that the Holy Ghost is a third, distinct person apart from the Father and the Son. That is a good thing. That is sound LDS doctrine as well. No one is arguing that point. Period. End of discussion. We all, you included, appear to be in agreement on this point.

Thanks. I was attempting to use John 14:26 to, in part, make that point.

The point of disagreement is from what authority do you get your understanding and belief.

I only used the Bible as a source of understanding.

Latter-day Saints arrive at the conclusion based on latter-day scripture and the interpretation of latter-day prophets.

I understand that.

Why? Because the Bible has no single explicit Book-Chapter-Verse(s) citation which teaches the doctrine. One can amalgamate a bunch of Biblical verses and the read into the verses such an understanding if one really tries really hard.

While I know that there is no verse that says "and this is the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost" I don't see the conclusion of a Triune God as forced or the result of selective amalgamation. It permeates scripture and the writings of the early Christians.

However, there are denominations that take the exact same Bible, amalgamate a bunch of verses, try really hard and manage to reach the exact opposite conclusion. The United Church of Christ, God's Church Worldwide, Unitarians, Jehovah's Witnesses come most readily to mind.

These and other groups use scripture to reach exact opposite conclusions of doctrine taught by the LDS Church. I agree that many groups have to try really hard to conclude that the Holy Spirit is not distinct, divine and sharing in the attributes of God.

Harold O.J. Brown's Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church rather nicely explains the who's, how's,and why's that the Bible can be interpreted to deny the Holy Ghost as a divine personage. <snip>

Are you saying Brown was making an argument against the Holy Ghost, because as I understand he was a firm believer in the Trinity.

I believe that what others are asking you to provide is one single Biblical citation which explicitly states that the Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead - or trinity if you so prefer.

I responded directly to a statement that challenged the divinity and distinctness of the Holy Ghost with Biblical scripture that I believe answers that challenge. You, above, ascribe to me a claim I did not make. But, I do believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are presented throughout scripture as Divine and Distinct. The very name of Christ is Trinitarian - Christos, Messiah, means "anointed" with the Messianic unction. The Father is the one who from all eternity 'anoints' the Son by causing the Spirit to rest on him, as an unction. - the oil of gladness mentioned in the Psalms - because the Spirit is the joy of the divine communion (O. Clement).

Clement says:

"A solitary God would not be 'Love without limits.' A God who made himself two-fold, according to a pattern common in mythology, would make himself the root of an evil multiplicity to which he could only put a stop by re-absorbing it into himself. The Three-in-One denotes the perfection of Unity - of 'Super-unity' according to Dionysius the Areopagite - fulfilling itself in communion and becoming the source and foundation of all communion. It suggests the perpetual surmounting of contradiction, and of solitude as well, in the bosom of an infinite Unity. Each divine Person 'possess unity though his relationship with himself' (St. John of Damascus). The best image of the Father, according to a monk of the Eastern Church is the heart: "Each heartbeat is an impulse by which the Father gives himself. These beats send towards us the Blood of the Son, given life by the breath of the Spirit."

Edited January 28, 2012 by Gervin

[ebeddoulos]

While I know that there is no verse that says "and this is the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"

On this we are agreed.

I don't see the conclusion of a Triune God as forced or the result of selective amalgamation. It permeates scripture and the writings of the early Christians.

On this we must disagree. I am bemused though. On the one hand you state that there is "no verse that says 'and this is the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost'" and on the other you say you "don't see the conclusion of a Triune God as forced or the result of selective amalgamation." To me this is an either-or proposition. Either, one single Biblical citation will prove the point or it takes an amalgum of more than one to prove the point. Apparently, you view it differently. Perhaps if you would be so good as to provide your logic points with scriptural proof-texts supporting them, I might be able to learn something new. I am intrigued. I truly am.

These and other groups use scripture to reach exact opposite conclusions of doctrine taught by the LDS Church. I agree that many groups have to try really hard to conclude that the Holy Spirit is not distinct, divine and sharing in the attributes of God.

It is my contention that many other groups have to try really hard to conclude that the Holy Spirit is a distinct, divine and sharing in the attributes of God based solely on what is found within the Bible. I marvel that so many are able to make the leap of faith and arrive at the correct conclusion. Thank goodness for Latter-day prophets and scriptures or else "There but for the grace of God go I."

Are you saying Brown was making an argument against the Holy Ghost, because as I understand he was a firm believer in the Trinity.

No. Everything I've read by and of him indicates that he was a believer in the Trinity. He just states that the Holy Ghost is a late entrant - post 381 CE - into the trinitarian pantheon. I think he defends his position well and his reasoning I feel is solid.

I responded directly to a statement that challenged the divinity and distinctness of the Holy Ghost with Biblical scripture that I believe answers that challenge. You, above, ascribe to me a claim I did not make.

I am unsure as to what you are referencing. What claim are you talking about?

[Gervin]

On this we must disagree. I am bemused though. On the one hand you state that there is "no verse that says 'and this is the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost'" and on the other you say you "don't see the conclusion of a Triune God as forced or the result of selective amalgamation." To me this is an either-or proposition. Either, one single Biblical citation will prove the point or it takes an amalgum of more than one to prove the point. Apparently, you view it differently. Perhaps if you would be so good as to provide your logic points with scriptural proof-texts supporting them, I might be able to learn something new. I am intrigued. I truly am.

I don't understand why the lack of one single Bible verse to answer all questions about the Holy Ghost invalidates a multitude of verses that support the Spirit's divinity and distinct nature. If I said that there is one God and that God is the true God and that all other gods are false I might reference Deuteronomy 4:35 (“You were shown these things so that you might know that the LORD is God; besides him there is no other.”), Jeremiah 10:10 (“But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King."), and Psalm 96:5 (“For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens.”). Does this, in your view, invalidate my original statement?

Likewise, I might use four different verses to explain my belief that God is eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, and provides salvation. Why would that invalidate my use of multiple verses to explain the Holy Ghost as Eternal (Hebrews 9:14), Omniscient (1 Corinthians 2:10-11), Omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), and a Savior (Romans 8:1-27)? The Bible also contains verses that describe the Holy Spirit as involved in creation (Genesis 1:2 and Psalms 104:30), the incarnation (Matthew 1:18, 20 and Luke 1:35), and the resurrection (Romans 1:4; 8:11).

No. Everything I've read by and of him indicates that he was a believer in the Trinity. He just states that the Holy Ghost is a late entrant - post 381 CE - into the trinitarian pantheon. I think he defends his position well and his reasoning I feel is solid.

I haven't read the full article you cite - and I obviously don't have the smarts that Dr. Brown possessed, but the references and attributes assigned to the Holy Ghost seem (to me) to unfold in the New Testament in a clear pattern (see as a reference some of the verses I cited, above); it's not like 350 years after the resurrection of Christ in the year 381 a bunch of people got together and decided unilaterally that the Holy Ghost should be given, out of the blue, some status of their determination. Irenaeus of Lyons (130 - 208), writing before the year 200, laid out "the rule of our faith, the foundation of the building, the stability of our manner of life" in the form of Article I: God the Father, Article II: the Word of God, the Son of God, Christ Jesus, and Article III: the Holy Spirit. (The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching). He again refers to the Father, the Word and the Spirit in his Against Heresies. In that book he also says this: "As if God had no hands of his own! From all eternity he has with him the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit. It is by them and in them that he does all things." Here's someone, about 200 years before the First Council of Constantinople recognizing the the Spirit, along with Christ, as eternal. I'm fairly sure he gets this from scripture and the teachings passed down from the apostles. He didn't get it from the original Nicene Creed of 325 or the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381.

Athanasius of Alexandria, who died in 373 wrote that "The Blessed Trinity is indivisible and enjoys Unity in regard to itself (Letters to Serapion). These are some of the verses and reasons I see a continuation - from Biblical verse to the teachings of the early fathers - recognizing the divinity and distinct role of the Spirit.

Edited January 30, 2012 by Gervin

[ebeddoulos]

Gervin,

You must understand one thing: you and I do not have an argument. You and I both believe that the Holy Ghost is a third, distinct person apart from the Father and the Son. That we arrive at it from two separate approaches is simply a marvel to me. I arrive at it by virtue of Latter-day revelation and scripture as interpreted by Latter-day prophets and having the truth confirmed by personal revelation witnessed by the Holy Spirit. You arrive at it by bringing together several verses from the Holy Bible which verses I freely admit I agree with and believe in. However you and I arrive at the conclusion, it brings our viewpoint into agreement. I do not think that just because you arrived at the correct conclusion from another direction that it somehow "invalidates" your conclusion. Far from it. I congratulate you. We do not have an argument.

The only point I was trying to make is that there are other denominations, among whom are those mentioned previously, who arrive at a very different conclusion than you have, by combining different verses of the Bible, just as you did. There is a reason the the Book of Mormon is called "Another Testament of Jesus Christ". It is precisely for circumstances just like this. When there is a conflict of doctrine (such as whether or not the Holy Ghost is a divine personage or not) and both sides claim the Bible as its authority, the Book of Mormon acts as a second witness. Latter-day prophets act as a third witness. The Word of God is established.

"This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (2 Corinthians 13:1)

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

I would like to offer some comments on your post. You wrote:

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.

Actually, I was not forgetting this account. The problem is that it is far from clear that the two figures who speak in this version of the story are the Father and the Son. Here is the relevant part of the account:

"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; When I was about 17 years old I saw another vision of angels...."

In this account, the two personages appear one at a time. The first personage says nothing. The second personage tells Joseph that his sins are forgiven and testifies to him "that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." I think we can safely conclude that the second personage is not Jesus Christ. The suggestion that he is the Father does not seem likely to me, for several reasons.

First, that the speaker refers not only to Jesus in the third person but also to God (the Father) in the third person. That is, he testifies "that Jesus Christ is the Son of God," not (as in the 1838 version) that "this is my beloved Son."

Second, we have no other account from Joseph Smith of the Father pronouncing Joseph's sins to be forgiven. The 1832 account has the Lord (Jesus) doing so, but not the Father (on this point, see below). In the early 1835 account from Oliver Cowdery, originating earlier in the same year as this account from Joseph Smith, it is an angel or messenger from God, not the Father or the Son, who tells Joseph his sins are forgiven:

"Though fear was banished from his [Joseph's] heart, yet his surprise was no less when he heard him declare himself to be a messenger sent by commandment of the Lord, to deliver a special message, and to witness to him that his sins were forgiven, and that his prayers were heard...."

This seems to be the story that Joseph was telling during 1835.

Third, Joseph refers three times to this first visionary experience as a vision of angels. As quoted above, Joseph said that he "saw many angels" in the vision and refers to his later vision as "another vision of angels." Five days later in the same diary, Joseph refers to his first visionary experience as "the first visitation of Angels." Three times, then, Joseph referred to that experience as a vision or visitation of angels. Not once does he identify either of the personages who spoke to him as the Father or the Son.

It is possible to try to knock each of these points down one at a time, but I think the cumulative weight of the three points favors the conclusion that the two personages in this account are two angels, not the Father and the Son.

You wrote:

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.

The interpretation of the summary words "firstly he receiving the testamony from on high" as referring to the Father testifying of the Son seems strained to me. Identifying the source of this testimony based on a verbal coincidence in the use of "testamony" in the 1832 account and "testified" in the 1835 account is very weak. (Brown tries to strengthen the argument by citing the 1838 account, but that account does not use any form of "testimony" or "testify" in relation to the Father's speech.) In any case, the argument is doubly problematic because, as I explain above, it seems unlikely that the speaker in question in the 1835 account is the Father. The most likely interpretation of the summary statement in the 1832 account is based on simply reading the rest of the account, where that summary clearly refers to the appearance of "the Lord" to Joseph. That is, "the testamony from on high" in context comes from the Lord Jesus, not from the Father.

You wrote:

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.

That is because references to "God" and "Lord" in the same context could easily be read in light of the customary though not uniform practice in the NT of using "God" for the Father and "Lord" for Jesus Christ (especially notable in Paul's writings). But the familiarity of that very usage makes the two-Lords reading of the 1832 account all the more problematic. Once that fact is recognized, the text of the 1832 account appears rather clearly to be referring to one person as "Lord" all the way through.

You wrote:

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

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

It is one of the best efforts I have seen to refute the claim that Joseph Smith's original theology was modalistic. Its argument is largely effective, however, because it is critiquing the over-reaching claim that Joseph remained modalistic throughout 1830-1833. In my opinion, Joseph's theology quickly moved away from modalism after the publication of the Book of Mormon. I would not, for example, see the theology of the Book of Moses as modalist. Furthermore, unlike some of my evangelical colleagues, I don't feel it necessary to claim that the Book of Mormon is consistently modalist from beginning to end. I think rather that its theology is a rude mixture of modalist and trinitarian statements. In any case, it is not my contention that Joseph's 1832 account omits any reference to the Father because Joseph was modalist at the time. Rather, my view is that in 1832 Joseph had no notion of the Father as a separately embodied being that could appear visibly as such alongside the Son.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

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.

Again, this is simply not so. With LDS texts I often express agreement, as a matter of fact. I also accept harmonizations of apparent discrepancies among LDS texts when those harmonizations seem reasonable. It is simply not the case that I am "ALWAYS hypercritical and assume the worst" with LDS texts.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

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.

First of all, you are knocking down a straw man, since I don't believe that the Holy Spirit is "the same person" as God (i.e., as God the Father). My claim is that Acts 5:3-4 treats the Holy Spirit as God, i.e., as having the same status or position in the order of things as God, and thus in some sense as identical to God without identifying him as the Father.

Second, the argument for such an understanding of Acts 5:3-4 is actually pretty strong. Ananias's sin of lying to the Holy Spirit is presented in the context of Satan having filled his heart to do so. Peter's statement thus draws a strong contrast between Satan and the Holy Spirit; the apostles and other true Christians in the church were full of the Holy Spirit (as mentioned in earlier passages in Acts), whereas Ananias was showing himself to be full of Satan instead. Thus the passage contrasts two supernatural persons who vie for supreme influence in the hearts of human beings. It is perfectly natural and sensible to understand the Holy Spirit in this context as the divine Spirit contrasted with the devilish spirit. So then, when Peter makes a parallel statement referring to "God" where he had just referred to the Holy Spirit, it is quite sensible to see Peter as in some way identifying or equating the two.

Here are some interesting comments on the passage:

3. The Divinity of the Holy Ghost: There remains to be considered the question, Is the Holy Ghost God? Undoubtedly. The proof is in the fact that he is a member of the Holy Trinity. Also in the fact that Jesus makes blasphemy against the Holy Ghost a greater sin than blasphemy against himself. This could not be unless the Holy Ghost were Deity, and in some peculiar way so related to man that makes this sin of blasphemy against him especially heinous.

"Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost," said Peter to Ananias, when the latter had dealt deceitfully in the sale of his land and the gift he had made to the Church. "Thou hast not lied unto men," said the chief Apostle, "but to God!" [Acts 5:3]

From which it is to be concluded that to lie to the Holy Ghost is to lie to God, because the Holy Ghost is God.

B. H. Roberts, Seventy's Course in Theology, 5:45 (see also 3:191-92, and in several other places in his writings)

That the Holy Ghost was recognized in ancient times as a member of the Godhead is evident from the conversation between Peter and Ananias when the latter held back a part of the price received from the sale of a piece of land.

“But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? … thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God” (Acts 5:3-4).

President Gordon B. Hinckley, "The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," Ensign (CR), Nov. 1986, 49.

[JDave]

Again, this is simply not so. With LDS texts I often express agreement, as a matter of fact. I also accept harmonizations of apparent discrepancies among LDS texts when those harmonizations seem reasonable. It is simply not the case that I am "ALWAYS hypercritical and assume the worst" with LDS texts.

What seems reasonable to someone who is set on proving that LDS doctrine is false and wildly different from Evangelical doctrine is really the question here. I remember discussing with you the LDS interpretation of 2 Ne. 25:23. Your claims were skewed and forced, but you simply claimed that they were "reasonable" and therefore OK. Nevermind the mountain of quotes I compiled to show what a complete view would be. If you felt you could reasonably claim something and it worked well for your polemic ends, no evidence could convince you otherwise. And for the work you are engaged in, I guess it is reasonable to assume you would do as much.

[Mark Beesley]

Bill,

You wrote:

Again, this is simply not so. With LDS texts I often express agreement, as a matter of fact. I also accept harmonizations of apparent discrepancies among LDS texts when those harmonizations seem reasonable. It is simply not the case that I am "ALWAYS hypercritical and assume the worst" with LDS texts.

What you claim to do, and what we, as Latter-day Saints observe you do, seems to be at oods with one another.

And now I am going to politicize this thread: The tactics of non-Mormons who have taken it upon themselves to educate the world about who we really are is strikingly similar to the Republican Primary candidates who have abandoned civility and are engaging in a nearly 100% negative campaign of attacking the other guy. If you want to save people from Mormonism, do it by showing that you are offering something that is desirable without tearing down your "opposition." If you have something truly superior and desirable, that should be an easy task.

[Rob Bowman]

Dave,

What seems reasonable to someone who is set on proving that LDS doctrine is true is another question that might be asked. But such questions get us nowhere fruitful; they are simply indirect paths to ad hominem arguments. Bill's claim that I "ALWAYS" assume the worst about LDS texts is simply false; it is an attempt to poison the well against any criticism I might express. That is the real issue here.

What seems reasonable to someone who is set on proving that LDS doctrine is false and wildly different from Evangelical doctrine is really the question here. I remember discussing with you the LDS interpretation of 2 Ne. 25:23. Your claims were skewed and forced, but you simply claimed that they were "reasonable" and therefore OK. Nevermind the mountain of quotes I compiled to show what a complete view would be. If you felt you could reasonably claim something and it worked well for your polemic ends, no evidence could convince you otherwise. And for the work you are engaged in, I guess it is reasonable to assume you would do as much.

[Rob Bowman]

Mark,

How about instead of criticizing nameless others who are not here, you address what I actually say and do? In my writings, I say both positive and negative things about the LDS religion. Furthermore, I say almost nothing negative about Mormon people.

When the LDS Church omits its teaching of the Great Apostasy from its missionary lessons, you can start lecturing others about restricting themselves to showing that what they have is desirable rather than tearing down the opposition.

What you claim to do, and what we, as Latter-day Saints observe you do, seems to be at oods with one another.

And now I am going to politicize this thread: The tactics of non-Mormons who have taken it upon themselves to educate the world about who we really are is strikingly similar to the Republican Primary candidates who have abandoned civility and are engaging in a nearly 100% negative campaign of attacking the other guy. If you want to save people from Mormonism, do it by showing that you are offering something that is desirable without tearing down your "opposition." If you have something truly superior and desirable, that should be an easy task.

Edited February 1, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Pahoran]

Dave,

What seems reasonable to someone who is set on proving that LDS doctrine is true is another question that might be asked. But such questions get us nowhere fruitful; they are simply indirect paths to ad hominem arguments. Bill's claim that I "ALWAYS" assume the worst about LDS texts is simply false; it is an attempt to poison the well against any criticism I might express. That is the real issue here.

It is reasonable to expect a believer in a doctrine to have an understanding about what is primary and what is secondary, or what is core and what is peripheral, what is essential and what is nonessential, that an unbeliever would not.

It is likewise reasonable to understand that no scripture or sacred text conveys any meaning on its own; ultimately the only legitimate use of such a text is to rely upon the understanding of the interpretive community that accepts it as authoritative.

OTOH, those who are interested in merely debunking will never go to the kind of effort to understand a doctrine that its believers do. Once such a person finds something polemically useful, they simply stop looking.

You and your anti-Mormon "colleagues" think that you can find modalism in the Book of Mormon, because that's what you are looking for. But in reality, it isn't there.

There is no modalism in the Book of Mormon.

I don't know whether there is any modalism in any of Joseph Smith's writings at any time; but that is a different question.

Regards,

Pahoran

[JDave]

What seems reasonable to someone who is set on proving that LDS doctrine is true is another question that might be asked. But such questions get us nowhere fruitful; they are simply indirect paths to ad hominem arguments. Bill's claim that I "ALWAYS" assume the worst about LDS texts is simply false; it is an attempt to poison the well against any criticism I might express. That is the real issue here.

While 'always' may be hyperbole, we have many repeated examples of what you consider to be reasonable. Is the general consensus here that you are often hypercritical of LDS texts/doctrine? Has this issue been raised multiple times? If you continue to act the same way, then the real issue might be who is poisoning your well. It is very difficult to conduct an anti-anything crusade without introducing poison to your own well.

[Mark Beesley]

Mark,

How about instead of criticizing nameless others who are not here, you address what I actually say and do? In my writings, I say both positive and negative things about the LDS religion. Furthermore, I say almost nothing negative about Mormon people.

When the LDS Church omits its teaching of the Great Apostasy from its missionary lessons, you can start lecturing others about restricting themselves to showing that what they have is desirable rather than tearing down the opposition.

I kept it general because I didn't wish to make it overly personal.

What missionaries and the Church teach about the Great Apostasy is a far cry from what you do. Perhaps, as an exercise, you can explain to us how our discussion of the Great Apostasy differs from your critique of the Gospel Principles Manual.

[Rob Bowman]

Mark,

You wrote:

What missionaries and the Church teach about the Great Apostasy is a far cry from what you do.

I agree. I don't teach that every denomination of Christianity other than mine is part of the Great Apostasy. So you've got me there.

Perhaps, as an exercise, you can explain to us how our discussion of the Great Apostasy differs from your critique of the Gospel Principles Manual.

Remember, I don't think there is anything wrong with what I do. Presumably you don't think there is anything wrong with what your missionary lessons do. And neither do as, so far as the general principle of seeking to present to others one's own sincerely held beliefs, including one's sincerely held concerns about the false teachings of others.

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

It is reasonable to expect a believer in a doctrine to have an understanding about what is primary and what is secondary, or what is core and what is peripheral, what is essential and what is nonessential, that an unbeliever would not.

It is likewise reasonable to understand that no scripture or sacred text conveys any meaning on its own; ultimately the only legitimate use of such a text is to rely upon the understanding of the interpretive community that accepts it as authoritative.

In that case, the Bible means what we evangelicals say it means, because we are the interpretive community that accepts the Bible as authoritative. Agreed?

You wrote:

OTOH, those who are interested in merely debunking will never go to the kind of effort to understand a doctrine that its believers do. Once such a person finds something polemically useful, they simply stop looking.

This may be so more often than not, I'll agree. But there are exceptions. I am such an exception. I don't stop looking until I have become familiar with how Mormons understand the issues. I have absolutely no interest in finding something polemically useful. I only care about finding the truth. That's why I participate here -- I want to get the best Mormon explanations of the issues.

You wrote:

You and your anti-Mormon "colleagues" think that you can find modalism in the Book of Mormon, because that's what you are looking for.

That's ridiculous. Why would we go looking for modalism in the Book of Mormon? Why would anyone? Apparently, you think we "anti-Mormons" had a conversation one day that went something like this:

"Okay, we've got to find some polemical ammunition against Mormonism. Anyone have any suggestions?"

"Hey, here's a fun idea. Let's say there's modalism in the Book of Mormon!"

"Modalism? Hmm, I never thought of that. Okay, let's do it. Frank, you look in 1 Nephi for modalism. Jesse, you look in 2 Nephi. Billy Bob, you take those short books after 2 Nephi. Tom, you take Mosiah...."

You know full well nothing of the sort happened. What happened was this: as non-Mormons (and some Mormons) read the Book of Mormon, they noticed something peculiar. They noticed it contained a number of statements that sure sound like modalism:

And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. 2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son— 3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son— 4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. 5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people. (Mos. 15:1-5)

Behold, he created Adam, and by Adam came the fall of man. And because of the fall of man came Jesus Christ, even the Father and the Son; and because of Jesus Christ came the redemption of man. (Mormon 9:12)

Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. (Ether 3:14)

Having noticed statements like these, the readers formed a plausible hypothesis: these statements were expressions of modalism. They then read through the rest of the Book of Mormon to see how well this hypothesis explains the textual data. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

You wrote:

But in reality, it isn't there.

There is no modalism in the Book of Mormon.

In view of your earlier statement (quoted above) that a text means only what its religious community says it means, I take it your point here is that there is no modalism in the Book of Mormon because Mormons say so. If that's your point, it is difficult to argue with your conclusion without disputing your epistemological or hermeneutical premise. And I do dispute it.

My own position, as I've already stated, is that I don't think the Book of Mormon is consistently modalistic. But there are statements that are reasonably interpreted as modalist. Denying their existence and giving as your reason, in effect, "Because we say so," isn't exactly persuasive.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

In that case, the Bible means what we evangelicals say it means, because we are the interpretive community that accepts the Bible as authoritative. Agreed?

Oh, so your little upstart offshoot of a recent minority faction of the Western branch of Christianity is nothing less than "the interpretive community that accepts the Bible as authoritative," is it?

Did you know that I sometimes call that kind of thinking "arrogant?" Right now I can't imagine why.

I'll tell you what, Rob; I'll agree that Romans and Galatians mean what EV's say they mean, because those appear to be the only parts of the Bible from which you receive any effective teaching, if you agree to let us have the rest. Is that a deal?

In reality, the Bible is the sacred text of a much larger intepretive community than just conservative North American Protestants, and interpreting it is an ongoing conversation throughout that community. We also are a small but active part of that community, and the fact that, in a small number of cases, our interpretations are quite different from that of others, simply means that the conversation shows no sign of coming to an end.

This may be so more often than not, I'll agree. But there are exceptions. I am such an exception. I don't stop looking until I have become familiar with how Mormons understand the issues. I have absolutely no interest in finding something polemically useful. I only care about finding the truth. That's why I participate here -- I want to get the best Mormon explanations of the issues.

So that you can pre-empt them in your next anti-Mormon publication?

That's ridiculous. Why would we go looking for modalism in the Book of Mormon? Why would anyone? Apparently, you think we "anti-Mormons" had a conversation one day that went something like this:

You know full well nothing of the sort happened. What happened was this: as non-Mormons (and some Mormons) read the Book of Mormon, they noticed something peculiar. They noticed it contained a number of statements that sure sound like modalism:

Having noticed statements like these, the readers formed a plausible hypothesis: these statements were expressions of modalism. They then read through the rest of the Book of Mormon to see how well this hypothesis explains the textual data. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

Your straw man is silly.

I don't imagine any such conversation. What I really think happened was that the first North American Protestant anti-Mormon to read all the way past 1 Nephi 1:1 stumbled across those passages, and in the excess of his North American Protestant witch-hunting zeal, leaped to the conclusion that they sounded like "modalism." He then set about to build a case based upon his over-eager assumption, carefully ignoring or suppressing all contrary evidence; and the rest of you, grateful that someone else had done your dirty work for you, just kept passing this silly accusation around like a piece of shared chewing gum.

Because if you did really "then read through the rest of the Book of Mormon to see how well this hypothesis explains the textual data," you'd bump directly into:

3 Nephi 11:

7 Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him.

And:

3 Nephi 11:

11 And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning.

And:

3 Nephi 11:

35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

Now if I thought for a picosecond that you were genuinely interested in what we really believe, and in what our scriptures actually mean to us, then I would take the trouble to explain it to you. As it is, I think we both know why you didn't want to include verse 36 in your list of "modalism" prooftexts; it's because you and I both know that it doesn't support you, don't we?

You wrote:

In view of your earlier statement (quoted above) that a text means only what its religious community says it means, I take it your point here is that there is no modalism in the Book of Mormon because Mormons say so. If that's your point, it is difficult to argue with your conclusion without disputing your epistemological or hermeneutical premise. And I do dispute it.

Of course you do. It's fatal to your polemical enterprise.

My own position, as I've already stated, is that I don't think the Book of Mormon is consistently modalistic. But there are statements that are reasonably interpreted as modalist. Denying their existence and giving as your reason, in effect, "Because we say so," isn't exactly persuasive.

Permit me to correct one misstatement for you:

But there are statements that can be interpreted as modalist, if one is only hostile and determined enough.

There. All done.

But as they say, it's a free country, Rob. You keep right on interpreting the Book of Mormon in accordance with your agenda, and we'll keep on interpreting it in accordance with what it actually says.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

I agree. I don't teach that every denomination of Christianity other than mine is part of the Great Apostasy. So you've got me there.

No, just all those BEFORE the Reformation.

And only the ones AFTER the Reformation are right- right?

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

I've had enough of your attitude. Please dial it back.

You wrote:

Oh, so your little upstart offshoot of a recent minority faction of the Western branch of Christianity is nothing less than "the interpretive community that accepts the Bible as authoritative," is it?

Did you know that I sometimes call that kind of thinking "arrogant?" Right now I can't imagine why.

You were the one who introduced the phrase "the interpretive community" in the context of viewing a text as "authoritative." Why would this language be arrogant if I were to use it of my community but not when you use it of yours?

There are numerous sects that claim to regard the Book of Mormon as authoritative. Is it arrogant for you to claim that your sect is "the interpretive community" that decides what the text means? Is it because yours is the biggest?

I don't arrogantly claim that evangelicals have exclusive interpretive rights over the Bible. I don't make that claim at all. That is your mistake. I was reflecting back your words in a hypothetical claim to show you why it is an objectionable stance.

You wrote:

I'll tell you what, Rob; I'll agree that Romans and Galatians mean what EV's say they mean, because those appear to be the only parts of the Bible from which you receive any effective teaching, if you agree to let us have the rest. Is that a deal?

You are just displaying your ignorance. Evangelicals have written numerous commentaries and other careful studies of every book of the Bible. We vigorously promote the reading of the whole Bible through in a year (many of us do so every year). My online work, The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity: An Outline Study, cites roughly 1,000 references drawn from well over 300 different chapters of the Bible, including references from all 27 books of the New Testament. My book Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ likewise cites every book in the New Testament as well as 36 of the 39 books of the Old Testament. It cites all but 5 of the 117 chapters in the four Gospels and Acts, all but 15 of the 87 chapters in Paul's epistles, all but one of the 34 chapters from the non-Pauline epistles, and all but 5 of the 22 chapters in Revelation. (It would appear that Paul gets somewhat less thorough use in that book than does the rest of the New Testament!) Sense and Nonsense about Heaven and Hell cites every New Testament book except Philemon, 2 John, and 3 John. The Word-Faith Controversy cites every New Testament book except Philemon.

Facts, sir. Facts are inconvenient to rash accusations and unfounded caricatures.

You wrote:

In reality, the Bible is the sacred text of a much larger intepretive community than just conservative North American Protestants, and interpreting it is an ongoing conversation throughout that community.

You're quite correct. The Bible is indeed "the sacred text of a much larger intepretive community than just conservative North American Protestants." Did you think I would disagree with you? Perhaps you thought this was a nice rhetorical zinger. It sounds like a nice patronizing put-down, implying (without actually saying) that I have a narrowly ethnocentric notion of the Christian community. I assure you that you are once again simply displaying your ignorance. I not only am aware of the fact that most Christians are not in North America, I actually have relationships with Christians in many other parts of the world. Just two years ago I spoke to gatherings of Christians in England and in Uganda; the believers I met in Uganda were from some five or six countries in Africa as well as from other parts of the world. My colleague at IRR has ministered alongside and to Christians in almost every country in Latin America as well as in other nations such as Madagascar. Our organization has literature in 30 different languages and has shipped such resources to at least 84 different nations.

Facts. They can be downright inconvenient, can't they?

Your comments on the issue of modalism ignored the point I made -- again -- that I don't claim, and don't think, that the Book of Mormon is consistently modalist. Everything you said on that issue is made irrelevant by that one simple point.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[sethpayne]

Pahoran,

I've had enough of your attitude. Please dial it back.

You wrote:

You were the one who introduced the phrase "the interpretive community" in the context of viewing a text as "authoritative." Why would this language be arrogant if I were to use it of my community but not when you use it of yours?

There are numerous sects that claim to regard the Book of Mormon as authoritative. Is it arrogant for you to claim that your sect is "the interpretive community" that decides what the text means? Is it because yours is the biggest?

I don't arrogantly claim that evangelicals have exclusive interpretive rights over the Bible. I don't make that claim at all. That is your mistake. I was reflecting back your words in a hypothetical claim to show you why it is an objectionable stance.

You wrote:

You are just displaying your ignorance. Evangelicals have written numerous commentaries and other careful studies of every book of the Bible. We vigorously promote the reading of the whole Bible through in a year (many of us do so every year). My online work, The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity: An Outline Study, cites roughly 1,000 references drawn from well over 300 different chapters of the Bible, including references from all 27 books of the New Testament. My book Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ likewise cites every book in the New Testament as well as 36 of the 39 books of the Old Testament. It cites all but 5 of the 117 chapters in the four Gospels and Acts, all but 15 of the 87 chapters in Paul's epistles, all but one of the 34 chapters from the non-Pauline epistles, and all but 5 of the 22 chapters in Revelation. (It would appear that Paul gets somewhat less thorough use in that book than does the rest of the New Testament!) Sense and Nonsense about Heaven and Hell cites every New Testament book except Philemon, 2 John, and 3 John. The Word-Faith Controversy cites every New Testament book except Philemon.

Facts, sir. Facts are inconvenient to rash accusations and unfounded caricatures.

You wrote:

You're quite correct. The Bible is indeed "the sacred text of a much larger intepretive community than just conservative North American Protestants." Did you think I would disagree with you? Perhaps you thought this was a nice rhetorical zinger. It sounds like a nice patronizing put-down, implying (without actually saying) that I have a narrowly ethnocentric notion of the Christian community. I assure you that you are once again simply displaying your ignorance. I not only am aware of the fact that most Christians are not in North America, I actually have relationships with Christians in many other parts of the world. Just two years ago I spoke to gatherings of Christians in England and in Uganda; the believers I met in Uganda were from some five or six countries in Africa as well as from other parts of the world. My colleague at IRR has ministered alongside and to Christians in almost every country in Latin America as well as in other nations such as Madagascar. Our organization has literature in 30 different languages and has shipped such resources to at least 84 different nations.

Facts. They can be downright inconvenient, can't they?

Your comments on the issue of modalism ignored the point I made -- again -- that I don't claim, and don't think, that the Book of Mormon is consistently modalist. Everything you said on that issue is made irrelevant by that one simple point.

Rob,

I disagree with about 90% of what you write/say but I have to give credit when it's due. You just totally PWNED Pahoran. Well done.

Seth

[Rob Bowman]

Seth,

You wrote:

I disagree with about 90% of what you write/say but I have to give credit when it's due. You just totally PWNED Pahoran. Well done.

Thanks. I'm unclear where you stand religiously and theologically, but it may be that if we were not meeting on a Mormon apologetics forum your agreement with me would be much higher than 10%. I actually agree with most Mormons on a fair number of substantive issues (e.g., the sinlessness, death, and physical resurrection of Jesus Christ; the immorality of abortion, adultery, homosexual conduct, etc.), but the dynamics of the board tend to accentuate our differences rather than our agreements.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

I've had enough of your attitude. Please dial it back.

You're funny, Rob.

You wrote:

You were the one who introduced the phrase "the interpretive community" in the context of viewing a text as "authoritative." Why would this language be arrogant if I were to use it of my community but not when you use it of yours?

There are numerous sects that claim to regard the Book of Mormon as authoritative. Is it arrogant for you to claim that your sect is "the interpretive community" that decides what the text means? Is it because yours is the biggest?

You are beating up a straw man. I said nothing about my "sect" being "the interpretive community." That is the product of your own generous imagination.

It is true that, outside of the Church of Jesus Christ, there are a few little splinter groups that also accept the Book of Mormon as scripture. I cheerfully accept that they are a small part of the interpretive community aforementioned, even if their views are idiosyncratic.

My point -- as I'm sure you perfectly well know -- is not that they are outside of the interpretive community in question; it is that you are.

Their views of what the Book of Mormon teaches, however ultimately mistaken, are formed in good faith; yours are not.

I don't arrogantly claim that evangelicals have exclusive interpretive rights over the Bible. I don't make that claim at all. That is your mistake. I was reflecting back your words in a hypothetical claim to show you why it is an objectionable stance.

If that's what you were trying to do, then you blew it.

You wrote:

You are just displaying your ignorance. Evangelicals have written numerous commentaries and other careful studies of every book of the Bible. We vigorously promote the reading of the whole Bible through in a year (many of us do so every year). My online work, The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity: An Outline Study, cites roughly 1,000 references drawn from well over 300 different chapters of the Bible, including references from all 27 books of the New Testament. My book Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ likewise cites every book in the New Testament as well as 36 of the 39 books of the Old Testament. It cites all but 5 of the 117 chapters in the four Gospels and Acts, all but 15 of the 87 chapters in Paul's epistles, all but one of the 34 chapters from the non-Pauline epistles, and all but 5 of the 22 chapters in Revelation. (It would appear that Paul gets somewhat less thorough use in that book than does the rest of the New Testament!) Sense and Nonsense about Heaven and Hell cites every New Testament book except Philemon, 2 John, and 3 John. The Word-Faith Controversy cites every New Testament book except Philemon.

Yes, I'm aware of the strenuous efforts made by EV Protestants to reconcile the very consistently works-focused majority of the Bible to their preferred antinomian interpretation of Romans and Galatians.

Facts, sir. Facts are inconvenient to rash accusations and unfounded caricatures.

Indeed they are.

For instance, it is a fact that the Church organised by Joseph Smith and five others in Fayette, New York on April 6, 1830 has had continuous and unbroken existence every minute of every single day from that date to this, and is currently led by Thomas S. Monson. This is a simple, easily established, historical fact. But anti-Mormon propaganda mills regularly subscribe to the false claim that the Church "broke up" in 1844.

Does IRR subscribe to that claim?

You wrote:

You're quite correct. The Bible is indeed "the sacred text of a much larger intepretive community than just conservative North American Protestants." Did you think I would disagree with you? Perhaps you thought this was a nice rhetorical zinger. It sounds like a nice patronizing put-down, implying (without actually saying) that I have a narrowly ethnocentric notion of the Christian community. I assure you that you are once again simply displaying your ignorance.

No, I am responding to what you actually said:

In that case, the Bible means what we evangelicals say it means, because we are the interpretive community that accepts the Bible as authoritative. Agreed?

If it is a function of my "ignorance" to take you at your word, then I humbly apologise. I should take note, from now on, not to make that mistake again.

I not only am aware of the fact that most Christians are not in North America, I actually have relationships with Christians in many other parts of the world. Just two years ago I spoke to gatherings of Christians in England and in Uganda; the believers I met in Uganda were from some five or six countries in Africa as well as from other parts of the world. My colleague at IRR has ministered alongside and to Christians in almost every country in Latin America as well as in other nations such as Madagascar. Our organization has literature in 30 different languages and has shipped such resources to at least 84 different nations.

By "resources," do you actually mean "anti-Mormon propaganda?" Or is your bigotry ecumenical enough to go after other faith traditions as well?

Facts. They can be downright inconvenient, can't they?

They certainly don't do anti-Mormons any favours.

Your comments on the issue of modalism ignored the point I made -- again -- that I don't claim, and don't think, that the Book of Mormon is consistently modalist. Everything you said on that issue is made irrelevant by that one simple point.

You are right that the Book of Mormon is not consistenly modalist; it would be more correct to rearrange the words slightly, thus: The Book of Mormon is consistently not modalist.

But to understand that, you would need to take the same approach to the Book of Mormon as you routinely do with the Bible, namely to harmonise and reconcile passages, instead of cherry-picking verses for their polemical utility.

IOW, you'd need to actually prove Bill Hamblin wrong, instead of proving him right.

As you do.

At every opportunity.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

You are beating up a straw man. I said nothing about my "sect" being "the interpretive community." That is the product of your own generous imagination.

It is true that, outside of the Church of Jesus Christ, there are a few little splinter groups that also accept the Book of Mormon as scripture. I cheerfully accept that they are a small part of the interpretive community aforementioned, even if their views are idiosyncratic.

I feel confident that you are choosing to accept them as part of "the interpretive community" only for rhetorical purposes specific to this exchange. In other contexts you surely would not do so. Some of those communities (rightly, in my estimation) interpret the Book of Mormon to condemn the plural marriages of Joseph Smith, for example. You and they cannot both be right. In this respect, and in many other respects, you are competing interpretive communities, not a single interpretive community with exclusive rights of interpretation. That is simply not a coherent claim.

My point -- as I'm sure you perfectly well know -- is not that they are outside of the interpretive community in question; it is that you are.

Their views of what the Book of Mormon teaches, however ultimately mistaken, are formed in good faith; yours are not.

Your line of attack (and that is the correct word) here is ad hominem. I reach more or less the same conclusion that some of those other Mormon sectarians reach as to the theology of the Book of Mormon. Some of them would cite the Book of Mormon against the plurality-of-gods doctrine of the LDS Church, just as I do. Your objections to my views are grounded entirely on ad hominem criticisms of my motivations rather than the facts.

You wrote:

Yes, I'm aware of the strenuous efforts made by EV Protestants to reconcile the very consistently works-focused majority of the Bible to their preferred antinomian interpretation of Romans and Galatians.

First ad hominem, now straw man. The fallacies are flying. Evangelical Protestant theology is anti-legalism, not antinomian. And even on the selective cross-section of evangelical theology that you are caricaturing, our favorite proof texts for salvation sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus come not just from Romans and Galatians but also from Matthew (e.g., 11:28-30), John (e.g., 1:12; 3:16; 5:24; 11:25-26; 14:6; 20:30-31), Acts (e.g., 4:12; 16:30-31), Ephesians (2:8-10), Titus (3:4-7), and 1 John (e.g., 5:10-13). This isn't an exhaustive list of passages supportive of our position; it's merely a short list of some of our favorite texts outside of Romans and Galatians for illustrating this particular belief.

You wrote:

For instance, it is a fact that the Church organised by Joseph Smith and five others in Fayette, New York on April 6, 1830 has had continuous and unbroken existence every minute of every single day from that date to this, and is currently led by Thomas S. Monson. This is a simple, easily established, historical fact. But anti-Mormon propaganda mills regularly subscribe to the false claim that the Church "broke up" in 1844.

Does IRR subscribe to that claim?

Not in the oversimplistic way you articulate it here, with the false dichotomy of two extremes (that's fallacy #3).

You wrote:

If it is a function of my "ignorance" to take you at your word, then I humbly apologise. I should take note, from now on, not to make that mistake again.

Setting aside your sarcasm, whether or not Mormons have exclusive province of interpretation of their holy books, surely I have some sort of privileged status with regard to interpreting my own words. Your interpretation of my earlier comment ignored the first three words: "In that case, the Bible means what we evangelicals say it means, because we are the interpretive community that accepts the Bible as authoritative. Agreed?" Those three words telegraph to the observant reader that what follows assumes for the sake of argument that what you claim is the case.

You wrote:

By "resources," do you actually mean "anti-Mormon propaganda?" Or is your bigotry ecumenical enough to go after other faith traditions as well?

It isn't bigotry to criticize false doctrine. I call as my witnesses Jesus (Matt. 22:23-32) and the apostles Paul (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:12-19; Gal. 3:1-5; Phil. 3:1; Col. 2:4-8; 1 Tim. 4:1), Peter (2 Peter 2:1-3), John (1 John 2:18-19), and Jude (Jude 3-4).

You should have been able to check for yourself. Our website currently has resources on the false religious teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses, the Church Universal and Triumphant, the Mind Sciences (e.g., Christian Science), and the New Age movement.

You wrote:

You are right that the Book of Mormon is not consistenly modalist; it would be more correct to rearrange the words slightly, thus: The Book of Mormon is consistently not modalist.

So you assert. I respectfully disagree.

You wrote:

But to understand that, you would need to take the same approach to the Book of Mormon as you routinely do with the Bible, namely to harmonise and reconcile passages, instead of cherry-picking verses for their polemical utility.

IOW, you'd need to actually prove Bill Hamblin wrong, instead of proving him right.

As you do.

At every opportunity.

Just because I am convinced that the Bible's teachings are harmonious does not mean I must assume the same to be true of every other religion's collection of religious texts. I am not obliged to assume or concede that the Qur'an contains no contradictions, or that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society has never altered its doctrine without frank acknowledgment, or that the three volumes of A Course in Miracles are perfectly coherent. Nor am I obliged to make such an assumption with regard to the Mormon scriptures. I take the same approach to all of these religious texts: where their advocates provide plausible, cogent explanations for apparent discrepancies, I accept them; where their explanations fall short of that standard, I make the best assessment I can given the textual evidence and let the chips fall where they may.

If the apparent "modalist" statements in the Book of Mormon were anomalies, I'd be inclined to try to explain them in some other way than as intentionally teaching modalism. And in fact, I do. It is my opinion, at the moment, subject to revision upon further study, that Joseph Smith (whom I regard as the principal author of the Book of Mormon) did not intend to teach modalism. It's my guess he thought he was explaining the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. There is room for legitimate differences of opinion on this question, as I see it. However, there is no plausible way to argue that the Book of Mormon teaches polytheism, such as Joseph Smith taught in 1844. Nor do I find persuasive attempts by Mormon apologists to refute the conclusion that there is a theological development from the monotheism (of whatever precise stripe) of the Book of Mormon and Joseph's earliest revelations to his "binitarianism" and then eventually to his full-blown polytheism.