Institute for Religious Research Study Guide Challenge

[Ares]

Edit: Incidentally, I was banned from viewing the thread where I demonstrated Bernar's hypocrisy for complaining about anti-Mormon lying. But that was to be expected here. It must be fun winning these debates by muzzling the only opposing view.

...and yet those who see things differently from you complain about being muzzled when we ban them from threads when they start with the insults and immature postings.

You just got yourself banned from this thread.

Some growing up is required by both sides of this ongoing gripe fest.

[mfbukowski]

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

on if he was stronger?

Is light a wave or a particle? This is an absurdity- soon we will be talking about the number of angels which can sit on the head of a pin.

We are clearly attempting to discuss something on the limits of intelligible language. And if you have a problem with that, get used to it. To me, such statements by Joseph Smith seem closer and closer to today's state of scientific research.

http://www.scientifi...-boy-of-physics

Edit: Added following quote from the above link

In Brief

Who

LEONARD SUSSKIND

Vocation | Avocation

Theoretical physicist, known especially for pioneering string theory, black hole physics and the multiverse

Where

Stanford University

Research Focus

What is the deep nature of physical reality?

...We may never be able to grasp that reality. The universe and its ingredients may be impossible to describe unambiguously.

Stanford University physicist Leonard Susskind revels in discovering ideas that transform the status quo in physics. Forty years ago he co-founded string theory, which was initially derided but eventually became the leading candidate for a unified theory of nature. For years he disputed Stephen Hawking’s conjecture that black holes do not merely swallow objects but grind them up beyond recovery, in violation of quantum mechanics. Hawking eventually conceded. And he helped to develop the modern conception of parallel universes, based on what he dubbed the “landscape” of string theory. It spoiled physicists’ dream to explain the universe as the unique outcome of basic principles.

Physicists seeking to understand the deepest levels of reality now work within a framework largely of Susskind’s making. But a funny thing has happened along the way. Susskind now wonders whether physicists can understand reality.

Edited January 16, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Yes, our doctrine changes.

It's supposed to.

Get over it.

[Bikeemikey]

Yes, our doctrine changes.

It's supposed to.

Get over it.

Nice :-) !!!

Best summation of the thread.

[wenglund]

Yes, I read your rhetoric, but it doesn't change the simple fact that Bernard was wrong. He claimed it was the Lamanites who were referring to their own "heretical" doctrines by speaking to the Nephites. I showed that the Nephites addressed the Lamanites and agreed with them. In both cases I showed the heretics were being addressed and there is no indication anywhere in the text that Ammon believed this was a "heretical" doctrine. That is something you guys like to read into it but there is no basis for it. In fact, he clearly states in unambiguous terms that the "Great Spirit" to which they referred, was in fact "God." Hence, Bernard's seless rant against Bowman for supposedly misrepresenting the Book of Mormon, ultimately proves embarrassing. Though I don't expect fellow apologists to spend much time soaking this in.

You "point out" no such thing, you merely asserted it. The text says nothing about a God with a body, and I think that was the primary point Bowman was trying to make.

ROFL! If that is true, then why is Bernard bending over backwards trying to make it a "heretical" doctrine? Now we're hearing two different things from you guys. Why not just approach this verse with the same apologetic riff raff that is used to explain away the biblical verses that refer to God as a spirit? Bernard didn't think this through at all and now he has been exposed for all the things he tried to throw upon Bowman.

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

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

Edit: Incidentally, I was banned from viewing the thread where I demonstrated Bernar's hypocrisy for complaining about anti-Mormon lying. But that was to be expected here. It must be fun winning these debates by muzzling the only opposing view.

I am tryijng to get a credibility reading on the quoted post above, but I am affraid it will require an electron microscope to see the measurement, and I don't happen to have one at my disposal.

However, the level of dogmatic barks and projections coming from that post are ear-shattering.

It is good to know, though, that Rob has a kindred spirit in Kevin. Two peas in a pod. They are certainly welcome to each other.

Thanks,, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

It is good to know, though, that Rob has a kindred spirit in Kevin. Two peas in a pod. They are certainly welcome to each other.

Thanks,, -Wade Englund-

Distaste for all things Mormon can be a unifying cause.

[mfbukowski]

Distaste for all things Mormon can be a unifying cause.

Just proof that "unity in purpose" works very well.

[Rob Bowman]

Scott, I'll start with this post from you:

[sigh]

We could probably go on for 50 pages or more correcting Rob point by point where he has taken LDS scripture/doctrine/beliefs/quotations out of context by refusing to view them with anything other than a conservative Protestant frame of reference. And if the past is any indication, he will resist such correction, insisting in effect that he knows better than knowledgable Mormons what Mormonism teaches.

What you are doing here is poisoning the well by speculating about the nature of the replies that I am likely to make to the criticisms presented here. Speculative comments about what I am likely to do appealing to vague and unsubstantiated accusations about what I have supposedly done in the past ("if the past is any indication") are not conducive to friendly, respectful, or civil discussion.

I am absolutely willing, eager, and ready to make corrections to what I have written where legitimate deficiencies are brought to my attention. But the posts I have read so far (I haven't gone through all of them) must be judged either to ignore my question or to labor according to a flawed assumption. I had challenged the Mormons here to read the series and assess whether I had made a good-faith effort to understand LDS beliefs fairly. The posts I have read thus far appear to assume that finding any sort of error or mistake is sufficient response to that challenge. It isn't.

You can be sure that I will not be arguing, in response to any specific criticism, that I know better than knowledgeable Mormons what Mormonism teaches. I may, of course, have to point out that knowledgeable Mormons themselves sometimes disagree about what Mormonism teaches--a point that has been amply demonstrated and documented on this very forum (e.g., the thread not long ago about the King Follett Discourse). In such a situation I will have to make the best good-faith determination I can which set of knowledgeable Mormons is correctly representing what the LDS Church actually teaches.

[Rob Bowman]

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

The LDS Church teaches that spirits are corporeal, material beings.

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

This is an easy one.

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

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

You wrote:

Rob, it is rather sad that you issue a challenge and then so quickly is it met and proved so simple to defeat. Please tell me you will correct your many errors? And please don't ignore the question. A simple yes or no will do. Cheers,

A yes or no answer to your question would either way presuppose that it had been shown that I had made many errors. "No, I will not correct my many errors" admits that I have made many errors and am refusing to correct them. Your demand that I give a simple yes or no answer to that question fits the textbook definition of the complex-question or loaded-question fallacy perfectly.

Prior to your post, I had been accused of no more than three errors. Even assuming they were all genuine errors, three would hardly qualify as many. I have already refuted one of the allegations of error (regarding the word corporeal). So without breaking a sweat I have reduced your "many errors" to two, and I'm just getting started.

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

This post (see below) has nothing to do with the stated topic of your own thread, which is an answer to my challenge to read the Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide and fairly assess whether it displays at least a good-faith effort to try to understand LDS beliefs fairly.

In his discussion of GP chapter 23, Rob claims,

There are many things on which the Bible is silent. Is there a scripture Rob can point to that supports his assertion that what isn't in the Bible doesn't matter?

With regard to authority to administer the sacrament, it was only a few decades into the history of the early Christian church that Ignatius wrote to the Smyrnaeans,

Which version of the authority to "pass the sacrament" best matches Ignatius' instructions? Evangelical or Mormon?

Bernard

[KevinG]

... I will have to make the best good-faith determination I can which set of knowledgeable Mormons is correctly representing what the LDS Church actually teaches.

The Mormons are best at representing what they believe. Evangelicals are not required to referee in situations where our doctrines may not be fully agreed upon. Thank you for volunteering anyway.

[Bernard Gui]

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

Just a comment...the OP addressed a challenge Rob made on another thread here about a specific section of the IRR that he had produced himself. That is why his name was used.

Bernard

Edited January 17, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[mfbukowski]

You can be sure that I will not be arguing, in response to any specific criticism, that I know better than knowledgeable Mormons what Mormonism teaches. I may, of course, have to point out that knowledgeable Mormons themselves sometimes disagree about what Mormonism teaches--a point that has been amply demonstrated and documented on this very forum (e.g., the thread not long ago about the King Follett Discourse). In such a situation I will have to make the best good-faith determination I can which set of knowledgeable Mormons is correctly representing what the LDS Church actually teaches.

And what does the non-existent "Evangelical Church" teach?

[mfbukowski]

This is an easy one.

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

We have our own usage. So what?

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

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

We've met personally and I like you, so please understand that I mean no disrespect and my response is not intended as in any way a personal attack. In all candor, Mola, from my perspective what you describe you and other missionaries doing is dishonest. I'm not saying this to criticize you personally because I think that you may not have realized that it was dishonest. Look at it from our point of view. You report that you would tell Baptists "We believe in the Trinity." If you think about it, the Baptists who hear you say this will take away from that statement that you adhere to the same doctrine called "the Trinity" that they do. But the fact is that you don't; the truth is that you do think the doctrine of the Trinity is false. Granted, it may be easier to proselytize people by telling them that you believe the same thing they do, but it isn't honest. It would be like me going to a Hindu and telling him that we Christians also believe in reincarnation, when in fact we don't. The fact that the words reincarnation and resurrection look similar and their meanings superficially are similar (bodily life sometime after death) does not justify a Christian claiming that Christians believe in reincarnation. Likewise, the fact that LDS theology has a belief in beings called the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost does not justify Mormons telling Baptists or other Trinitarian Christians that Mormons also believe in the Trinity. Of course, if you said something like "We believe in something that might be called the Trinity but we view it rather differently," and then explained the difference, that would be fine.

And Mola, I have to say that your surprisingly frank admission confirms what evangelicals knowledgeable about LDS missionary efforts have been saying all along, which is that the missionaries often paper over some of the substantive differences between LDS and orthodox Christian beliefs. I hope you can understand why we find that troubling.

[Bernard Gui]

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

So we disagree. The OP answered Rob's challenge to find errors in his review of the Gospel Principles manual. I showed that in one section alone he made at least three errors: 1)the Book of Mormon teaches that God is the Great Spirit, 2)that it does not support the doctrine of exaltation, 3)that it does not support the doctrine of the pre-mortal existence of man. Did you know (2) and 3) before reading this discussion? If so , congratulations on your careful reading.

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

Of course there are practices in the modern Church that are not found in the BoM. For example, the Boy Scout program as the activity arm of the Aaronic Priesthood. Just kidding. My belief is the BoM provides a much broader foundation for our current beliefs and practices than most of us suppose.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Yes, I read your rhetoric, but it doesn't change the simple fact that Bernard was wrong. He claimed it was the Lamanites who were referring to their own "heretical" doctrines by speaking to the Nephites. I showed that the Nephites addressed the Lamanites and agreed with them. In both cases I showed the heretics were being addressed and there is no indication anywhere in the text that Ammon believed this was a "heretical" doctrine. That is something you guys like to read into it but there is no basis for it. In

Answered by several posters. Pahoran put the nails in this coffin.

Edit: Incidentally, I was banned from viewing the thread where I demonstrated Bernar's hypocrisy for complaining about anti-Mormon lying. But that was to be expected here. It must be fun winning these debates by muzzling the only opposing view.

You were banned for derailing the thread, just as you are doing here. please stop, or start your own thread wher you can discuss my hypocrisy to your heart's content.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Some growing up is required by both sides of this ongoing gripe fest.

I wasn't aware I was involved in a gripe fest. Please accept my apologies.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Ron asserts,

This post (see below) has nothing to do with the stated topic of your own thread, which is an answer to my challenge to read the Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide and fairly assess whether it displays at least a good-faith effort to try to understand LDS beliefs fairly.

Yes, it does, I assert.

[Rob Bowman]

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

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

22 Now Ammon being wise, yet harmless, he said unto Lamoni: Wilt thou hearken unto my words, if I tell thee by what power I do these things? And this is the thing that I desire of thee.

23 And the king answered him, and said: Yea, I will believe all thy words. And thus he was caught with guile.

24 And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God?

25 And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth.

26 And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?

27 And he said, Yea.

28 And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?

29 And he said: Yea, I believe that he created all things which are in the earth; but I do not know the heavens.

30 And Ammon said unto him: The heavens is a place where God dwells and all his holy angels.

31 And king Lamoni said: Is it above the earth?

32 And Ammon said: Yea, and he looketh down upon all the children of men; and he knows all the thoughts and intents of the heart; for by his hand were they all created from the beginning.

33 And king Lamoni said: I believe all these things which thou hast spoken. Art thou sent from God?

34 Ammon said unto him: I am a man; and man in the beginning was created after the image of God, and I am called by his Holy Spirit to teach these things unto this people, that they may be brought to a knowledge of that which is just and true;

35 And a portion of that Spirit dwelleth in me, which giveth me knowledge, and also power according to my faith and desires which are in God.

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

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

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

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

You wrote:

Ron asserts,

That's Rob, not Ron. And my assertion is clearly correct, since your post in question found fault not with my representation of LDS beliefs (the subject of the challenge you were supposedly answering) but with my defense of an evangelical belief.

You wrote:

Yes, it does, I assert.

Assertion is all you seem to have.

[Bill Hamblin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[wenglund]

The criticism here amounts to insisting that in order for me to try to represent LDS beliefs fairly, I must accede to LDS interpretations of the origins, historical significance, and original theological meanings of their sacred writings. In short, if I disagree, I am supposedly misrepresenting. That is not a cogent criticism.

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bernard Gui]

Bernard,

Assertion is all you seem to have.

Ouch!

Bernard

Edited January 17, 2012 by Bernard Gui