Institute for Religious Research Study Guide Challenge

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

You may be right, but I think that when he published the temple rites, he reached the tipping point. He is now totally commited to his reputation and career.

You are simply displaying your ignorance of the facts. I did not publish the temple rites. They were published over twenty years ago. They were on IRR's website for years before I even joined the staff. In response to the complaints various Mormons on this forum have raised, I took the initiative to have a statement placed on the web page that contains the ceremony text acknowledging Mormon sensitivities on the issue:

A note to the reader: Practicing members of the LDS Church regard the temple ceremonies, including the text of the endowment ceremony, as sacred and not to be divulged to the world or discussed with others. They take an oath not to make this information public. Former temple-going members who have left the LDS Church, on the other hand, often view their oath as invalid or non-binding. Although we do not regard the LDS temple ceremonies as sacred and do not agree with the idea of keeping sacred things secret, we understand and acknowledge that some Mormons may be offended by the publication of details concerning LDS temple ceremonies. It is definitely not our intention to mock Mormons or their practices; our intention is simply to make information available to those who are looking for it. We encourage readers to be circumspect about bringing up these things when engaged in discussion with practicing Mormons.

Despite this effort on my part, you and others continue to bring up this issue of the temple ceremony text as an excuse to question my motives, character, integrity, etc., regardless of the actual subject under discussion. It is tiresome. You are free to object to the presence of the text on our site, but this constant haranguing over this one issue is out of proportion. Stop and consider for just a few seconds the possibility that a non-Mormon might in good conscience disagree with you about this matter. It is possible, you know.

[Rob Bowman]

Dave,

You wrote:

I didn't take this seriously (and still don't) because it is basically one point of evidence that depends on all six items above. There is reasonable doubt on several of them, especially items #2 and #5. But I will grant that it is a point of evidence and I should have included it. One point, mind you, not six.

More stacking the deck.

You wrote:

You did not dismiss the evidence or show how it shouldn't even be considered. You simply found a way to justify and rationalize your position in spite of the evidence. But don't pretend the evidence is not still there to weigh in the balance.

All evidence should be considered. That does not mean I will agree with your interpretation of the evidence.

You wrote:

In addition to the fine cumulative case I have already presented, which shows quite clearly that the Book of Mormon authors and missionaries were making significant efforts to distance themselves from the term "Great Spirit" and not use it in their teaching, I present Alma 18:4 and Alma 19:25. In these verses Lamoni and then Lamoni's people are convinced that Ammon could be the Great Spirit. They have no qualms about this man, of flesh and blood, being their deity. So there is no belief within the Lamanite culture that their deity was Spirit only. Thus even if the Nephite authors accepted the deity as being somewhat representative of the Nephite belief in God, which is already a dubious assertion, a Spirit-only nature is not implied anyway.

This argument presupposes that someone who believed in the existence of a spirit would not consider it possible for the spirit to appear in a physical manifestation or form. According to Ether 3:6-16, Christ appeared in the body of his spirit to the brother of Jared, who took what he saw for a body of flesh and blood. So the mistaken identification of Ammon as the Great Spirit in no way disproves that they thought of the Great Spirit as a spirit (!).

You wrote:

So remove the point from your Guide. If it really isn't all that crucial to your point, as you have already stated, why rationalize the contortions that are necessary to keep it in there? Why restrict your good-faith effort to merely an effort to find a big enough logical loop hole for justifying your position?

I am considering a revision that will acknowledge the basic objection that you and others have raised here, though as I have explained I still think my reading of the passage is correct. Here is what I am considering revising the paragraph in question to say:

In the Book of Alma, the God of the Nephites is repeatedly identified or equated with the “Great Spirit” of the Lamanites (Alma 18:2-5, 11, 18, 26, 28; 19:25, 27; 22:9-11; cf. 31:15-17). Although the reader is to understand that the Lamanites were ignorant of the gospel and held various false beliefs (a point emphasized by those Mormons who deny that this passage teaches that God is a person of spirit), their view of God as a Great Spirit is never challenged. In fact, that the Nephites’ “God” was a person of spirit is made clear by the fact that he is identified as the creator of all things (Alma 18:28, 32), who is elsewhere identified as Jesus Christ (Mosiah 3:8; Helaman 14:12). Of course, during that period Christ was a person of spirit and would later take on himself a body of flesh (Mosiah 7:27). Furthermore, when the Book of Mormon explains the idea of God becoming man, it distinguishes between the Father as God or “the Spirit” and the Son as “the flesh” (Mosiah 15:1-5; 3 Nephi 1:14). These points, taken together, all support the conclusion that in the Book of Mormon the Father is not a person of flesh and bone, as he is in Joseph Smith’s later theology.

I don't expect that you will agree with my argument, but I hope you can see that I am willing to acknowledge that Mormons like you have a different understanding of the passage.

[LifeOnaPlate]

In my Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide, I also identify areas of LDS teaching that I appreciate as well as areas that I strongly criticize. I also discuss some instances in which Mormons have given multiple interpretations of some of their scriptural texts.

Can you indulge me by providing two examples of this? I'd be happy to take a look at them and give you my general impression.

I point out places where Mormon doctrine agrees with some Christian theological views and not others.

And here is a very succinctly-stated explanation of why I think your entire project is flawed. You're pitting "Mormon doctrine" (ostensibly in your view something non-Christian, and monolithic, to boot--two strikes against you there) against "some Christian theological views and not others" (i.e., your own question-begging decisions of personal assumption and preconceptions, the third strike, you're out).

Now, my GPSSG is not written for scholars and does not purport to be an academic monograph, so in that respect it is different from Webb's book. But must all writing be purely academic?

So you're excusing sloppy and caricatured interpretation on the basis that it isn't "purely academic"? This is exactly what I'm talking about above. You ape scholarship. The IRR organization claims to be a "research" organization, the website claims to offer "resources for researching and evaluating" LDS scripture and belief "in light of history and the Bible." It claims to provide "Carefully documented articles and resources for investigating and evaluating," in addition to "Bible courses" and "book reviews." Your own profile there details your academic credentials and says you've received "numerous endorsements" from various scholars regarding a book you've written. To pretend like I'm not supposed to evaluate the scholarly level of this work when the entire site tries to exude academia doesn't seem legit to me. I'm not saying your work needs to be widely acknowledged in any particular academic circle in order to be accurate, or in order to be worth any time. I'm suggesting that based on the tone of the IRR organization it pretends to be something that it isn't, and your efforts to invite criticism in order to correct things seems disingenuous. Your reading of LDS scripture in regards to the "Great Spirit" is remarkably short-sighted, and the short-sightedness just so happens to coincide with your overall intended project, which is to discredit Mormonism. I doubt anyone could find a single example of you misinterpreting, misrepresenting, or offering an idiosyncratic reading of a single Mormon text that in any way casts a positive light on Mormonism, especially from an LDS perspective. Why is that? It seems to me you try to honor scholarship with your lips, but your heart is far from it, at least in this endeavor.

Do Millet, Robinson, et. al. publish only academic treatises? Of course not.

I have similar, though more limited, qualms about some of their work for the same reason, although these men do not write books to attack any particular theological stance, religious sect, or denomination, whereas your entire organization is dedicated to doing precisely that. It's a distinction worth making.

But in respect to the sorts of values and considerations you mention, my work is comparable to what you describe in the case of Webb.

But you don't succeed at embodying those values and considerations in any of your work that I have admittedly only briefly scanned. And this discussion itself, in this thread, doesn't inspire confidence in your ability to a) read Mormon texts, or b) receive sound advice from practicing Mormons with the aim of reaching a mutual understanding.

Again, you appear to be criticizing my work without actually reading it first (see Prov. 18:13; Matt. 7:12).

What's the real difference between not reading something in its entirety versus reading something and offering strained, inaccurate, short-sighted interpretations of it? (I doubt you've even read the BoM cover to cover, besides.)

[Loran Blood]

You might try reading through the whole thread before making comments like this one. Kevin was kicked out of the thread.

All well and good.

[cdowis]

Rob,

Those who are willing participants in the publication of the temple rites will discover that our feelings and opinions are totally irrevelant. Any apology or explanation to us is meaningless

My only comment on the matter is that God will not be mocked, and there may be terrible consequences from the One who has been offended. We speak out of love and concern.

Edited February 6, 2012 by cdowis

[LifeOnaPlate]

I don't expect that you will agree with my argument, but I hope you can see that I am willing to acknowledge that Mormons like you have a different understanding of the passage.

You failed to mention that the Lamanites apparently thought an embodied dude appearing in their midst might actually be the Great Spirit (thus not a ghost?). And your comment about "those Mormons who deny that this passage teaches that God is a person of spirit" overlooks the fact that no Mormons interpret this passage to teach that God is strictly and simply a Spirit.

Here's something for you to consider: I personally think the BoM text as a whole doesn't actually present an easy-to-tackle view on the ontology of God. It has some intriguing suggestions, very intriguing. I think teasing out some of these distinctions is an excellent exercise. But to pretend the BoM is univocal on this matter (as most Mormons also do) misses the complexity of the text, and to use this excerpt as a way to criticize Mormonism (as you do) looks like petty over-reaching for that very reason. It belies the nature of your reading. The guiding hermeneutic isn't "what does this text say." Instead, it is "what does this text say that I can use to criticize Mormonism?" This is a very good example of what I understand to be the shoddy nature of this so-called "study" "guide."

[mfbukowski]

I'll throw you one bone. Here's a tip: Why not change your whole approach to include multiple interpretations and perspectives? It baffles me that you, as a claimed academic, have failed to consider this approach. [Probable reason: because you're preaching (and getting paid for it?), not teaching or seeking to understand Mormonism.]

This is exactly precisely right on the money

If he could even summarize our position accurately and then show why he disagrees with it that would be something. But also there are all the unwarranted assumptions like arguing whether or not some distinction is "semantic" without even showing that he has an adequate understanding of modern philosophies of language defining what a "semantic" problem would be as opposed to a "real" one.

I would definitely like to shine a Wittgensteinian light on that one, but it's not worth the trouble and he would not understand it anyway.

[mfbukowski]

I guess I am puzzled by this thread.

As I remember, Rob has stated that he has read the BOM and received an answer from God that it is false.. He has shown no inclination to understand the doctrines it teaches, and why should he, since its origin is either from man or from the devil and there is no reason to take it seriously.

Having refuted the apologists in this thread and elsewhere, he has attained expert status on the Mormon cult.

With the increasing interest in Mormonism, this should be a great boost to his career as the "Refuter of the Mormons", recognized as a real champion of Christianity.

Hey wait a minute- didn't you used to be one of his "defenders"? I don't mean agreeing with his points but in encouraging others to be "nice"?

[LifeOnaPlate]

This is exactly precisely right on the money

If he could even summarize our position accurately and then show why he disagrees with it that would be something. But also there are all the unwarranted assumptions like arguing whether or not some distinction is "semantic" without even showing that he has an adequate understanding of modern philosophies of language defining what a "semantic" problem would be as opposed to a "real" one.

I would definitely like to shine a Wittgensteinian light on that one, but it's not worth the trouble and he would not understand it anyway.

And Bowman isn't quite so concerned about summarizing any particular Mormon position accurately because he can just say "well, they say this, but I know better, they are wrong" or he can say "oh, that is the view of a minority of LDS, not the broader church," etc. Basically, he can be entirely selective in what he chooses to emphasize or downplay. The game becomes a "heads I win, tails you lose" exercise in apologetics. It is the kind of approach that gives "apologetics" as a descriptor a bad name.

I wrote elsewhere:

One approach I favor in religious dialogue is a respectful engagement that seeks first to understand and respect the beliefs of the other. While I believe spreading the message of my religion is important, one effective method of doing so rises from a foundation built on common ground. (At the least, such a common ground can be a mutual desire to understand one another). Morally, this approach fulfills the commandment to "do unto others." Pragmatically, it reduces the possibility of arguing past one another, or getting hung up on peripheral issues. One simple way to know if you understand the position of the other is by attempting to restate the position of the other to his or her satisfaction.

Significant problems remain in this idealistic approach. For instance, the beliefs of any one religion can be remarkably diverse amongst its own adherents. This is no less true for my own religion -- identifying "official Mormon doctrine" has been compared to nailing Jell-O to the wall. The idea of "doctrine" itself is difficult to pin down. Is doctrine equal to "truth"? Is doctrine something all Mormons must accept? What constitutes Mormon doctrine? In order to facilitate better communication between members of other faiths (as well as harmony among Mormons), various efforts have been made to identify a standard for Mormon doctrine.

I go on to discuss various LDS approaches and conclude that, given the diverse answers, perhaps an effective thing to do is become more familiar with the diversity, or at the least, to acknowledge it explicitly before engaging in any particular analysis or discussion. But this sort of thing takes time, gets murky, and it isn't likely to achieve the goal Bowman is trying to achieve. His need to identify LDS beliefs is in order to merely debunk them. And Mormons who spend time giving him feedback only help him pad his credentials a little more (I passed this through the review of several Mormons!), while meantime he still offers much of the same short-sighted analysis as before.

[mfbukowski]

Now, my GPSSG is not written for scholars and does not purport to be an academic monograph, so in that respect it is different from Webb's book. But must all writing be purely academic? Do Millet, Robinson, et. al. publish only academic treatises? Of course not.

Code for "This is my version of Mormonism for Dummies, so it doesn't matter if I get even close- besides, I have an agenda"

[Loran Blood]

I believe the two terms, in this case, may reasonably viewed by some as synonymous.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Exactly. Since traditional Christians cannot explain what God is, specific terms such as "mode," "aspect," or "person" are not really descriptive of God's nature as much as place holders for the philosophical problems created by concepts like the "Trinity."

[Rob Bowman]

LOAP,

On the one hand, you have passed judgment on my work as superficial, sloppy, prejudiced, and so forth. On the other hand, you admit that you have only briefly scanned my writings, and you have to ask me for examples in which I express appreciation for some LDS teachings.

In short, your judgment of my work suffers from the very defects you assume characterize mine. Go do what you demand of me: do some real research before you make your criticisms.

[Rob Bowman]

LOAP,

You wrote:

You failed to mention that the Lamanites apparently thought an embodied dude appearing in their midst might actually be the Great Spirit (thus not a ghost?).

As I have explained here, this is an exceedingly weak objection in view of Ether 3.

And your comment about "those Mormons who deny that this passage teaches that God is a person of spirit" overlooks the fact that no Mormons interpret this passage to teach that God is strictly and simply a Spirit.

Some of the Mormons in this thread have argued that Ammon identifies God as the Great Spirit because by "God" he meant Jesus Christ, who at the time was a spirit and not flesh. Thus, my qualification.

Here's something for you to consider: I personally think the BoM text as a whole doesn't actually present an easy-to-tackle view on the ontology of God. It has some intriguing suggestions, very intriguing. I think teasing out some of these distinctions is an excellent exercise. But to pretend the BoM is univocal on this matter (as most Mormons also do) misses the complexity of the text, and to use this excerpt as a way to criticize Mormonism (as you do) looks like petty over-reaching for that very reason. It belies the nature of your reading. The guiding hermeneutic isn't "what does this text say." Instead, it is "what does this text say that I can use to criticize Mormonism?" This is a very good example of what I understand to be the shoddy nature of this so-called "study" "guide."

And how much of the study guide have you read?

[wenglund]

Remember, it is not my claim that the Book of Mormon intends to teach an overt modalism. I think there are modalistic statements in the Book of Mormon alongside more traditional trinitarian statements. Thus, I would not expect and do not find statements in the Book of Mormon that overtly deny the trinitarian distinctions. Instead, we find statements that blur or implicitly negate those trinitarian distinctions or that explain them in modalistic ways.

Remember, too, that you distinguished between modalism and classic trinitarianism using four non-ontological criteria. As such, for you to interpret a passage as modalistic rather than classic trinitarian, then one or more of the four distinctions ought to be present.

Notice here that Abinadi is quoted as saying that God shall be called the Son of God because he comes to dwell in the flesh (v. 2)

Please realize that this is comparable to when Isaiah declared: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isa. 9:6.

Do you view this Isaiah passage as modalistic?

...and that he becomes the Father and the Son by his coming in the flesh (v. 3).

In other words, through the incarnation Jesus became both God and man. Are you suggesting that the dual nature of Jesus is a modalistic belief?

Notice also that just as the flesh of Christ is called the Son, the Spirit is called the Father (v. 5).

More importantly, notice that in terms of the origins and nature of the spirit as compared and contrasted with that of the flesh, a distinction is drawn between the two using the labels "Father" and "Son."

If God becomes the Son when he comes in the flesh, then the Son per se does not preexist that coming in the flesh (point #1 above).

In other words, if God, the Son, became mortal man when he came in the flesh, then God, the Son, did not preexist as a mortal man prior to coming in the flesh. Are you sure this satisfies point #1 above?

If Christ is the Father and the Son, then the Father and the Son, at least in this text, are not distinct persons in relationship with one another but are instead different modes of the same divine person, God (point #3 above)

So, when the bible refers to Jesus as "the Eternal Father" and also refers to Jesus as the "only begotten Son," these passage are to be interpretted as suggesting different modes of the same divine person?

And if the Spirit is identical to the Father, then there is no personal relationship between the Spirit and the Father (point #4 above).

So, to your way of thinking, when Jesus is recorded in the Bible as saying that to see him is to see the Father, then that passage is intended to be interpreted modalistically as suggesting that because Jesus and the Father are identical, there is no personal relationship between Jesus and the Father (point #4 above)? Really?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 6, 2012 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

Exactly. Since traditional Christians cannot explain what God is, specific terms such as "mode," "aspect," or "person" are not really descriptive of God's nature as much as place holders for the philosophical problems created by concepts like the "Trinity."

These are all "semantic" problems in that they are based in language and no where else. They are ultimately descriptions we use to describe our experiences in different ways according to our needs to communicate with others. When we are communicating scientific observations we speak in a different way and in a different context than when we are speaking of religious belief- one is not more "valid" than the other, just different.

So all these nuances of mode, nature, essence, substance, being etc are just different descriptions with no difference in what we experience, which simply confuse the issue.

As LDS we can have direct experience of God- we do not experience the Father separately from the Son separately from the Holy Ghost. Yet we who have received personal revelations KNOW through direct experience that there is a Loving Presence who is looking out for us and guiding our lives, and who can give us direct answers to our spiritual questions, and thus confirm that "the church is true"- ie that belief the general theology of Mormonism is the "correct path" that this Loving Presence wants us to pursue and that the scriptures contain the essence of correct teachings. That is the experience- the phenomenology of it all.

The rest of it is construction and interpretation- and must be recognized as such. But that is the essence why our doctrine is supposed to be somewhat vage, and allows for so much diversity- we are each to be guided by the Lord individiually regarding these matters.

And that is where we part with what has become tradtional Christianity- the the tradition has been apostate for so long. They have frozen all the living revelations into a codified systematic jargon the violation of which is unacceptable- that is why the Christ we worship is perceived as "different"

Our diversity and our reliance on direct revelation is what makes all the difference. We are a living church. When Nietzsche said "God is dead" he was right.

The only problem was that it was THEIR logically impossible and mute "god", who died.

Edited February 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

Remember, too, that you distinguished between modalism and classic trinitarianism using four non-ontological criteria. As such, for you to interpret a passage as modalistic rather than classic trinitarian, then one or more of the four distinctions ought to be present.

No, those four points were not criteria for identifying modalism. They were four ways in which the differences between modalism and trinitarianism were genuinely significant and could not be explained away as merely semantic.

Regarding Mosiah 15:2, you wrote:

Please realize that this is comparable to when Isaiah declared: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (Isa. 9:6.

Do you view this Isaiah passage as modalistic?

No, and I don't think it is comparable, because what Isaiah 9:6 presents is a name that describes Christ; it is not offering an explanation for the meaning of the designation "Son," as in Mosiah 15:2. Also, we have essentially a fairly involved explanation of the Incarnation in Mosiah 15:1-5, and the whole thing is modalistic, not just the use of a single word like "Father."

You wrote:

In other words, through the incarnation Jesus became both God and man. Are you suggesting that the dual nature of Jesus is a modalistic belief?

No. But to say that his nature as God is the Father and his nature as man is the Son is modalistic.

More importantly, notice that in terms of the origins and nature of the spirit as compared and contrasted with that of the flesh, a distinction is drawn between the two using the labels "Father" and "Son."

I drew attention precisely to that distinction. The way it is used is modalistic, for the reason I explained.

In other words, if God, the Son, became mortal man when he came in the flesh, then God, the Son, did not preexist as a mortal man prior to coming in the flesh. Are you sure this satisfies point #1 above?

The Book of Mormon text does not say that the Son became a mortal man. It says that God became a man in the flesh and thereby became the Father and the Son.

So, when the bible refers to Jesus as "the Eternal Father" and also refers to Jesus as the "only begotten Son," these passage are to be interpretted as suggesting different modes of the same divine person?

Not quite. Christ has always been the Son; in the Bible this is not referring to his "mode" of being in the flesh. That is one of the problems with the Book of Mormon statements we are discussing. The words "Eternal Father" in Isaiah 9:6 KJV may not be the best translation; it is my opinion that it is better translated "(my) father is eternal," that is, it is a description of the Messiah's father as eternal. That is a topic for another time, I think.

So, to your way of thinking, when Jesus is recorded in the Bible as saying that to see him is to see the Father, then that passage is intended to be interpreted modalistically as suggesting that because Jesus and the Father are identical, there is no personal relationship between Jesus and the Father (point #4 above)? Really?

No. I said no such thing, nor did I imply it. Everything in John 14, including the line you are taking out of context, makes it clear that Jesus is not himself the Father.

[Loran Blood]

I take it that you say this after seriously wrestling with the writings of orthodox Christian theologians and philosophers who have discussed this issue. Could you cite a couple of these Trinitarians whose treatments of the issue you have studied and found wanting?

Not off hand, as I've read a great deal from various Christian apologists, mostly EV, over probably a 30 year period, but do not have those references at hand (or even remember most of them in any detail, to be exact). OK? Its "in my head," as are a number of other things.

I see an assertion here, not an explanation for why this distinction has no relevant meaning or appreciable difference.

Well, I think this will be made clear as the discussion progresses.

A lot of questions, or perhaps the same question asked in several different ways. Are you claiming that Trinitarians have never addressed this question, or are you claiming that their answers are not satisfactory?

They've been addressing the Question since the initial Arian/Athanasium Christological controversies beginning in the Third Century, but the problem here is the question of the provinance of these metaphysical ideas and the philosophical/theological problems they create through their own premises and arguments.

Yet the doctrine of the Trinity asserts otherwise. Are you claiming we are contradicting ourselves?

What I'm arguing here is that the metaphysical/ontological implications of the traditional doctrine of the Trinity tell us neither what God is, nor how the core attributes claimed for this being (one in substance yet comprising, in some metaphysical sense, three "persons") are either conceptually coherent or, for the purposes of a main part of my argument, how the difference between being a "mode" or projected extension of the single, unifed essense is meaningfully different from calling these projections "persons" and not "modes." or particular states of being of a single being, expressed, in some way, as differentiated from the unitery essence.

How is this conclusion an implication of the doctrine of the Trinity if the doctrine of the Trinity asserts to the contrary that the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and so forth?

I am, precisely, attempting a philosophical critique of precisely that claim. What the doctrine of the Trinity asserts is important, but equally important is what those assertion imply and the logical implications of those assertions to the body of the doctrine itself.

Well, Loran, you've asserted strongly that Trinitarianism amounts to modalism and asked how it could be otherwise, but you haven't indicated any awareness of why Trinitarians (and modalists, for that matter) disagree with you. Do you really think the argument between Trinitarians and Oneness Pentecostals, for example, is merely semantics?

No, not merely semantic. However, I do think a real problem exists in the sense that neither modalists or non-modalists can say, with any degree of conceptual clarity, what either of them are really talking about with reference either to what the "persons" or the "modes" of the Trinity actually are.

The doctrine of the Trinity differs from modalism in several significant ways.

First, modalism generally denies the preexistence of the Son distinct from the Father. They maintain that the Son came into existence in the Incarnation. Prior to the conception and birth of Jesus, on this view, God was simply God; through the conception and birth of Jesus, God became Father and Son (Father in reference to his deity, Son in reference to his humanity). The Holy Spirit is typically viewed as God in his immanence, contrasting with God in his transcendence (now known as the Father). In contrast to this typical modalist theology, Trinitarianism maintains that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have always existed simultaneously and as distinct from eternity.

I understand this aspect of it, but I don't think this gets us very far exactly for the reason that this is fundamentally metaphysical hairsplitting over attributes and chacteristics that it is not clear are much more than finely honed metaphysical trivialities. If God the Father is God in his transcendence, the Holy Spirit God in his immanence, and the Son God God in human manifestation, it is not clear how this is to be understood as meaningfully different from the idea of God the Father person, God the Son person, and God the Holy Spirit person being all a single, unitary entity while at the same time being three distinct entities presenting themselves as "God" while yet maintaining a single, fused identity (being a single "mode" in other words) of which other disctinct "modes" are extended in different forms for different purposes.

Another significant difference is that modalism typically denies the deity of the Son. Again, as stated above, the Son is usually understood in modalism as the humanity or flesh of Jesus Christ, as opposed to the deity of Christ which is identified as the Father. Trinitarianism, on the other hand, regards the Son as God.

But this is peripheral to my main point, which is that the "modes" and the "persons," within both persons cannot be defined in any clear way, and therefore cannot be sufficiently differentiated from each other to make either modalism or non-modal Trinitarianism conceptually meaningful. And both concepts contain overwhelming logical contradictions and conceptual dead ends that themselves are not amenable to clear description of meaning.

A third difference is that modalism must either deny relationship between the Father and the Son or it must deny that Jesus really is God after all. That is, if the Father and the Son are two different aspects of Jesus Christ, then it makes no sense for the Son to talk to the Father, to love the Father, to obey the Father, and for the Father to love the Son, talk to the Son, send the Son, and so forth.

But this just kicks the philosophical can down the road a bit. It equally makes no sense for Jesus to talk to, pray to, and obey the Father if Jesus is actually is the Trinity manifested as a specific instance of it. If Jesus is one in ontological substance or essense with the Father and the Holy Ghost; if Jesus is one in the absolute ontological sense the doctrine of the Trinity asserts, then it is the Trinity that is always manifesting itself, at one time as the Father, at another point as the Son, and here and there (or simultaineously) as the Holy Ghost. The Trinity then manifests itself in various ways for different purposes, and this is where modalism simply takes this to a logical conclusion somewhat different from the traditional Trinitarian view. Leaving the question of the Son's divinity or questions of his precise relationship to the Father as to origination aside for the moment, agian, the actual distinction between what a mode might be and what a "person" might be, with respect to ontological unitary essense itself, appears far less that sharp.

To get around this, modalists sometimes retreat into the idea that Jesus is not himself God but is a man in whom God dwelled.

But standard Trinitarianism claims that Jesus is a man in whom one of the "persons" of the Trinity dwells. And as God is "one" in some absulute metaphysical sense, it is claiming that the Trinity dwells in its fullness in the man Jesus, which mans that the other "persons" of the unified Trinitarian being must also, in some sense, be present in the man Jesus, as the man Jesus must in some ontological sense be simultaneously present in the Father and in the Holy Ghost.

These differences don't exhaust the issue, but they should be enough to show that the differences are not merely semantic.

No, they're not merely semantic, but the semantics of the question do appear to me to paper over a series of deep conceptual and logical problems created by the very doctrine itself, problems that are clearly and succinctly resolved by the First Vision.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Loran Blood

[JDave]

More stacking the deck.

You want it point by point rather than verse by verse? You seriously think your six items are six independent points in your favor? You apparently want to complain I am unfair regardless of what I do. You have yet to admit there is any evidence that might call into question your conclusion. EVERYTHING that I have mentioned you end up interpreting in a different way such that it has no impact on your pre-determined conclusion. Your revised paragraph below lists that the Lamanites had false beliefs, but then you immediately minimize that by stating that only some Mormons think that impacts the issue. So some Mormons, read ALL, think there is some interpretation of the text that might impact your conclusion. Is there a single bit of text that you think negatively impacts your conclusion?

This argument presupposes that someone who believed in the existence of a spirit would not consider it possible for the spirit to appear in a physical manifestation or form.

And you presuppose that they DO consider it possible for the spirit to appear in a physical form. Rob. Who is the one asserting a point to be proven?

In the Book of Alma, the God of the Nephites is repeatedly twice identified or equated with related to the “Great Spirit” of the Lamanites to bridge a knowledge gap with apostate Lamanites during missionary discussions (Alma 18:28 2-5, 11, 18, 26; 19:25, 27; 22:10 9-11; cf. 31:15-17). Although the reader is to understand that the Lamanites were ignorant of the gospel and held various false beliefs (a point emphasized by those Mormons who deny that this passage teaches that God is a person of spirit), and although the reader is purposefully made aware that "a Great Spirit" is a Lamanite tradition, their view of God as a use of the title Great Spirit is never challenged (though it is important to note that the Lamanites immediately cease using the title Great Spirit after they are taught). A not insurmountable hurdle is that the Lamanites believed that the quite obviously flesh-and-bone missionary in their midst could be the Great Spirit. It is possible they could have believed that he was just a physical manifestation of a truly spirit-only being.

In fact However, that the Nephites’ “God” was a person of spirit is made clear by still has a remote chance of being true due to the fact that he is identified as the creator of all things (Alma 18:28, 32), who is elsewhere identified as Jesus Christ (Mosiah 3:8; Helaman 14:12). Of course, during that period Christ was a person of spirit and would later take on himself a body of flesh (Mosiah 7:27). So if you assume Christ is being referenced, and if you further assume that Jesus Christ actually is God the Father, which can be done by taking Abinadi out of context by confusing titles with persons (Mosiah 15:1-9), then the teaching that we just worked at to interpret it as a teaching about Jesus can be further re-interpreted to now be a teaching about God the Father (again). Furthermore, this confusion can be extended to what "flesh" means when the Book of Mormon explains the idea of God becoming man, and it distinguishes between the Father as God or “the Spirit” and the Son as “the flesh” (Mosiah 15:1-5; 3 Nephi 1:14). These points, taken together, all support the conclusion are insufficient to claim, but can be used in desperate polemics, that in the Book of Mormon the Father is not a person of flesh and bone, as he is in Joseph Smith’s later theology

Wouldn't it be easier to just say that the Book of Mormon never claims God the Father has a physical body?

Edited February 6, 2012 by JDave

[wenglund]

Rob,

The biggest problem I have with you interpreting Mosiah 15:1-5 as modalistic is that you evidently ignore the context of the passage. You mistakenly view the passage as an ontological description of the Godhead, It isn't. Rather, it is actually an ontological description of the then future mortal Christ, which in turn is expliary of the ontology of mortal man. To not understand this would be to miss the main, Christ-centered, point of the chapter.

If it is of any help, try reading Matthew 26:41; John 3:6; and particularly Romans 8.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 6, 2012 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

How could we experience if God is modalistic or not?

Then the problem is "semantic".

It is based on different interpretations of very ambiguous theological propositions now assembled and called "The Bible" which were in most cases, written thousands of years ago in languages which are now either dead or drastically different by people who were drastically culturally different than we are and had no clue what "modalism" even meant.

I mean I don't want to spoil anyones fun, but sometimes there needs to be an adult in the room.

[mfbukowski]

Rob,

The biggest problem I have with you interpreting Mosiah 15:1-5 as modalistic is that you evidently ignore the context of the passage. You mistakenly view the passage as an ontological description of the Godhead, It isn't. Rather, it is actually an ontological description of the then future mortal Christ, which in turn is expliary of the ontology of mortal man. To not understand this would be to miss the main, Christ-centered, point of the chapter.

If it is of any help, try reading Matthew 26:41; John 3:6; and particularly Romans 8.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There you go again, confusing us with the facts.

[Calm]

And that is where we part with what has become tradtional Christianity- the the tradition has been apostate for so long. They have frozen all the living revelations into a codified systematic jargon the violation of which is unacceptable- that is why the Christ we worship is perceived as "different"

Our diversity and our reliance on direct revelation is what makes all the difference. We are a living church. When Nietzsche said "God is dead" he was right.

The only problem was that it was THEIR logically impossible and mute "god", who died.

I think applying this to all of traditional Christianity is an overstatement. "They" are, imo, a limited number of individuals who rely on the jargon more than on the Spirit, but there are many traditional Christians in my experience who place their faith much more in the Spirit than in the jargon for their understanding.

We must be very careful not to cross the line into generalizing too much in a conversation.

[LifeOnaPlate]

LOAP,

On the one hand, you have passed judgment on my work as superficial, sloppy, prejudiced, and so forth. On the other hand, you admit that you have only briefly scanned my writings, and you have to ask me for examples in which I express appreciation for some LDS teachings.

In short, your judgment of my work suffers from the very defects you assume characterize mine. Go do what you demand of me: do some real research before you make your criticisms.

Given all of the fine works on Mormonism in general, why would a person spend time reading your entire "study guide" when a limited conversation with the author reveals shoddy workmanship generally?

Further, have you read the Book of Mormon front to back, Mr. Bowman? How about the Doctrine and Covenants? The JST? The PoGP? The problem is I'm not being paid by a "research" organization to dissect your work, whereas it seems to me you are examining Mormonism as part of your employment. For 12 bucks an hour (a bargain!) I'll go through your entire document and provide detailed comments which I'd also publish online (and did you even notice that this offer goes against my previous statement that any assistance to you would be wasted, even counter-productive?).

Here's a freebie.I went to the first chapter of your "study guide" and found this in the first chapter:

Perhaps the most basic, fundamental truth of the Bible is that there is only one God and that he alone made us.

This is simply not true. I don't understand how a person who claims to be completing doctoral work can make such a plainly inaccurate claim, at the very outset of the "study guide" no less. You want me to spend my time reading through something that--at the very outset--makes an entirely untenable claim, not incidentally, but as the foundation of an entire essay? Your statement implies that the Bible is a single, unified, non-contradictory book speaking univocally. That's just flatly false. It's a view only espoused by certain biblical fundamentalists. Anyone who reads John Day's Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan will quickly be disposed of this notion. Or check out Heiser and Bokovoy's exchange in the old FARMS Review.

http://maxwellinstit...19&num=1&id=644

No, the Bible doesn't present one view of God, and no, it is not monotheism all the way through. Your subsequent references to unnamed "some people" who argue otherwise are weak. You don't present the strongest arguments of those who differ with your interpretation, then you go and selectively proof-text from the Bible in order to make your case appear much more solid than it is. If I can't get through your first chapter without finding an entirely inaccurate thesis what should I expect for the whole of it? I should add, you not only should be worried about the Mormons who read such inaccuracies, but you ought to consider that those Christians who read your work, only later to discover that it is fundamentally flawed, might be in for a rude awakening to the point that they question the whole of your work, or even their Christian faith in general.

So, let me know if you'd like to hire me to complete a review. I'd do a more thorough job, of course, providing more specific references and providing alternative perspectives as needed.

As I have explained here, this is an exceedingly weak objection in view of Ether 3.

Except that it isn't at all weak. Again, to pretend the BoM is univocal on this matter (as most Mormons also do) misses the complexity of the text (but you do this with the Bible as well). That's why your use of this excerpt as a way to criticize Mormonism looks like mere over-reaching and belies the overall approach of your reading. Your guiding hermeneutic isn't "what does this text say" and so forth. Instead, it is "what does this text say that I can use to criticize Mormonism?" This is a very good example of what I understand to be the shoddy nature of this so-called "study" "guide." I noticed you didn't respond to my comments about your claims to not be doing "scholarship." Does your "study guide" point out that is isn't a scholarly or academic work? Not that I saw. There isn't an introduction to it.

Some of the Mormons in this thread have argued that Ammon identifies God as the Great Spirit because by "God" he meant Jesus Christ, who at the time was a spirit and not flesh. Thus, my qualification.

So a poor reading by a single Mormon (if that is even what they claimed. I have doubts about your ability to adequately re-present a Mormon's perspective) is good enough for you and your "study guide"? This is your research organization's idea of "research"? Does this methodology help explain how you distance yourself here from claiming to be scholarly or academic?

Edited February 6, 2012 by LifeOnaPlate

[mfbukowski]

I think applying this to all of traditional Christianity is an overstatement. "They" are, imo, a limited number of individuals who rely on the jargon more than on the Spirit, but there are many traditional Christians in my experience who place their faith much more in the Spirit than in the jargon for their understanding.

We must be very careful not to cross the line into generalizing too much in a conversation.

I agree, technically, but it was more fun to write it that way with the Nietzsche stuff and all

[Calm]

I agree, technically, but it was more fun to write it that way with the Nietzsche stuff and all

I figured, but when one is criticizing another for sloppy work, it is better not to engage in it even just for fun.