Institute for Religious Research Study Guide Challenge

[Loran Blood]

Uh huh.

When you find someone named "Postmodern" please show me that claim

I have tons of Foucault here, among other stuff, from which to pry what everyone who has enountered this stuff understands to be the obvious, but that would derail the thread. Another time, perhaps.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

In any case, I believe in the Trinity because I think it is the only doctrine of God that adequately affirms all that the Bible teaches about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If you are going to challenge the doctrine of the Trinity, you will need to do so either by challenging that conclusion or by showing why we should not consider the Bible's teaching on this subject to be trustworthy.

This implies an unstated circular argument. It is precisely because the doctrine of the Trinity appears nowhere in the Bible at all, and is an importation from neo-Platonism of the Alexandrian variety, that the criticism becomes necessary, and from this criticism we can then move on to the First Vision, which tells us precisely where (if not exactly why) Hellenistic philosophy distorted and finially destroyed the original understanding of the nature of the Godhead as elucidated in fragmentary, but clear enough form in the NT.

So you would need to persuade me that such a discussion would hold out some potential for being fruitful by engaging some actual trinitarian thinking on the subject, rather than simply presenting your own philosophical objections constructed off the top of your head without reference to what trinitarians actually say.

Right and wrong Rob. I will philosohically scrutinize and critique any traditional Trinitarian argument you wish to bring to the table, but I will not argue my first principles on Trinitarian ground. I come from an LDS perspective and a general philosophcal perspective that wishes to take a doctrine such as this apart and see if it has all the tendons and ligaments it needs to stand up on its own. Is that understandable?

Edited February 7, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Pahoran]

You make an interesting observation here. Showing that Mormonism is not authentic Christianity is directly relevant to defending the legitimacy of evangelical Protestantism as authentically Christian. After all, if Mormonism is what it claims to be, then evangelicalism is part of the Great Apostasy. This means, contrary to much of the overheated rhetoric used here against what I do, that critiquing Mormon doctrines and claims is simply one relevant aspect of standing up for and defending my own evangelical beliefs.

Are you really telling us that the only way to defend the claims of EV Protestantism is to directly refute every conflicting claim? So that when you have finished eliminating the competition, you can triumphantly point to EV Protestantism as the "last Chrisitanity standing?"

It's a good thing we aren't required to rely upon that kind of negative apologetic strategy.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rob Bowman]

Blair,

You wrote:

Based on your exchange here re: the Great Spirit, and based on your first chapter of the study guide, I am telling you: no, you are not making a good-faith effort to understand Mormon belief accurately, and in addition, you aren't even presenting the diversity that is Christianity accurately, either. You have dismissed this criticism on the grounds that you are not trying to present a scholarly analysis. Then you still try to pretend that you've put together a responsible scholarly work.

If you cannot even get right what I have said in this thread, I suppose I should not expect you to critique my work fairly. I did not claim that the GPSSG was a scholarly work. Nor did I claim that if it isn't scholarly this would excuse error or misrepresentations of Mormon belief. It is written for popular-level reading but is based on careful study of LDS primary sources and a broad knowledge of Mormon theological and apologetic literature, both scholarly and not so scholarly.

None of the criticisms that have been presented in this thread have anything to do with my failing to understand Mormon belief accurately. The criticism of the word corporeal was a purely semantic criticism; in the very section where I used that word it is made plain that Mormons do not believe spirits have flesh and bone. The tempest in the Great Spirit teapot has nothing to do with representing Mormon belief accurately; it has to do with a difference of opinion as to what a particular passage in the Book of Mormon means. If I am not to be allowed to dissent from current Mormon interpretations of the Book of Mormon, then there is no point in trying to have a reasoned discussion, because the door has been closed to hearing different points of view.

You have it backwards, then, when you caricature me as saying:

i.e., "To the extent that someone agrees with me, they are reading me fairly."

Not at all. I don't expect faithful Mormons to agree with me about Alma 18. I do expect honest Mormons who follow my argument carefully to acknowledge that I have made a decent effort to engage the text and that I have not misrepresented what the LDS Church teaches. On the other hand, most of the criticisms I have received in this thread have indeed amounted to saying that if I disagree with the Mormon understanding of the Book of Mormon then I am by definition not acting in good faith.

You wrote:

I disagree that you offer a good-faith effort. I grant that you might believe it is a good-faith effort. Perhaps to that extent I might be willing to say it is in "good faith." (On the other hand, given that you work for a counter-cult association specifically geared not to present its own view of Christianity, but to criticize the religion of other people, all while aping scholarship when actually proselyting, I'd still question its being in good faith.)

There you go again. I stand by what I have been saying all along. You and the other Mormons here refuse to allow that I might be making a sincere effort to represent Mormon belief fairly because I am doing so as part of a counter-cult organization. It is ad hominem all the way.

You wrote:

As I said above, comparing your work with Stephen Webb's shows a stark difference between your criticisms of Mormonism and Webb's good-faith engagement with it.

Please at least answer the following:

Why do you think I, as a Mormon, would heartily endorse Stephen Webb's book (a non-Mormon who challenges some key LDS beliefs) while I also say yours is not quality?

That's easy. Two reasons. (1) Webb is going around caricaturing evangelical critics of Mormonism, playing both to Mormon sensibilities and to the sensibilities of the politically correct crowd in our culture that hates conservative evangelicalism above all else. (2) Webb has actually embraced a key element of Mormon theology and is defending other aspects of Mormonism that most evangelicals regard as highly erroneous.

This is why, in my opinion, you and others have a double standard where Webb is concerned. If I had made some of the very same criticisms of Mormonism that he did in his recent First Things article, those criticisms would have been trumpeted as proof that I was a vicious anti-Mormon propagandist. But because Webb made those same criticisms in the context of saying that Mormonism really isn't so bad as those narrow-minded evangelicals say it is, he gets the kid-glove treatment.

The irony here is that on some of the doctrinal elements of Mormonism that Webb criticized, I have actually presented a more nuanced explanation of the Mormon position than he did.

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You asked:

Are you really telling us that the only way to defend the claims of EV Protestantism is to directly refute every conflicting claim? So that when you have finished eliminating the competition, you can triumphantly point to EV Protestantism as the "last Chrisitanity standing?"

No.

[Rob Bowman]

Loran,

Apparently you want to have your philosophy cake and eat it too. Trinitarians are not allowed to learn anything from Platonism or use any philosophical terminology or categories to explain or articulate their belief, because doctrine should come from revelation and not philosophy; but Mormons may use philosophy to critique trinitarianism and do not need to take seriously the trinitarian appeal to biblical revelation as the foundation of their doctrine.

Did someone mention Calvinball?

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

I am curious. If I read it completely and still believe that while you may have tried to make a good faith effort, that you failed in that purpose, will my statement of such merit being labeled an honest and serious statement or would my disagreeing with you automatically disqualify my own effort from being honest and serious?

I won't prejudge the matter either way. I'll listen to what you have to say and whatever reasons or explanations you give, and I'll take it as seriously as I can. But Cal, I don't understand what it would mean to try to make a good-faith effort and fail. A good-faith effort simply means the same thing as trying to make such an effort. Trying to do something and making an effort to do something are the same thing.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[LifeOnaPlate]

If you cannot even get right what I have said in this thread, I suppose I should not expect you to critique my work fairly. I did not claim that the GPSSG was a scholarly work.

I know you didn't. Never claimed you did. (Rolling my eyes at the "if you cannot even get right" comment, seeing as how you completely read me wrong. Fancy that.) In fact, I pointed to your excuse as lame on these grounds:

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.

Nor did I claim that if it isn't scholarly this would excuse error or misrepresentations of Mormon belief.

Right. Your response only implied it.

It is written for popular-level reading but is based on careful study of LDS primary sources and a broad knowledge of Mormon theological and apologetic literature, both scholarly and not so scholarly.

Yet it isn't a careful reading, nor does it show broad knowledge of Mormon theological and apologetic literature.

None of the criticisms that have been presented in this thread have anything to do with my failing to understand Mormon belief accurately. The criticism of the word corporeal was a purely semantic criticism; in the very section where I used that word it is made plain that Mormons do not believe spirits have flesh and bone. The tempest in the Great Spirit teapot has nothing to do with representing Mormon belief accurately; it has to do with a difference of opinion as to what a particular passage in the Book of Mormon means.

So if you personally don't think it's important, no matter all of the Mormons here who tell you otherwise, damned if you'll correct your inaccurate reading on your "study" "guide."

Not at all. I don't expect faithful Mormons to agree with me about Alma 18. I do expect honest Mormons who follow my argument carefully to acknowledge that I have made a decent effort to engage the text and that I have not misrepresented what the LDS Church teaches.

OK. You've made a decent effort and then failed miserably.

There you go again. I stand by what I have been saying all along. You and the other Mormons here refuse to allow that I might be making a sincere effort to represent Mormon belief fairly because I am doing so as part of a counter-cult organization. It is ad hominem all the way.

If pointing to your own organization's description of itself, goals and tactics is "ad hominem," then sure, it's ad hominem. (I don't think you understand what "ad hominem means, though, based on your use of it in this context.)

That's easy. Two reasons. (1) Webb is going around caricaturing evangelical critics of Mormonism, playing both to Mormon sensibilities and to the sensibilities of the politically correct crowd in our culture that hates conservative evangelicalism above all else.

Funny, from a guy who has never read Webb's book. Evidently you're basing this on the First Things blog post? Where'd that moral indignation about me not reading your entire website before commenting on it go?

(2) Webb has actually embraced a key element of Mormon theology and is defending other aspects of Mormonism that most evangelicals regard as highly erroneous.

Really? Which one? For what reasons? How does Webb differ from/challenge LDS beliefs?

You have no idea.

This is why, in my opinion, you and others have a double standard where Webb is concerned.

Actually, it's the same exact standard applied to you and Webb.

If I had made some of the very same criticisms of Mormonism that he did in his recent First Things article, those criticisms would have been trumpeted as proof that I was a vicious anti-Mormon propagandist.

But because Webb made those same criticisms in the context of saying that Mormonism really isn't so bad as those narrow-minded evangelicals say it is, he gets the kid-glove treatment.

I read and recommended Webb's book prior to that FT article's publication. Try again.

The irony here is that on some of the doctrinal elements of Mormonism that Webb criticized, I have actually presented a more nuanced explanation of the Mormon position than he did.

The irony is that you think you understand Webb based on a blog post, whereas I've read his entire book. You're entirely wrong about why I say Webb is doing good work and you aren't. I invite you to try again.

[Rob Bowman]

Blair,

I wrote:

"If you cannot even get right what I have said in this thread, I suppose I should not expect you to critique my work fairly. I did not claim that the GPSSG was a scholarly work."

You now claim:

I know you didn't. Never claimed you did.

Arggh. Here is what you said, which I quoted for you for your convenience:

You have dismissed this criticism on the grounds that you are not trying to present a scholarly analysis. Then you still try to pretend that you've put together a responsible scholarly work.

I give up.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Blair,

I wrote:

"If you cannot even get right what I have said in this thread, I suppose I should not expect you to critique my work fairly. I did not claim that the GPSSG was a scholarly work."

You now claim:

Arggh. Here is what you said, which I quoted for you for your convenience:

I give up.

It's not hard to understand, Rob. I've said all along that your work apes scholarship. It pretends to be scholarship. I never said you claimed it was scholarly. I said your work pretends to be scholarship. Your whole website does. Can you point to me where your site clarifies between scholarship and whatever it is that your work actually is, since it isn't scholarship? Earlier I said:

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.

[wenglund]

Webb doesn't come across to me as a dogmatist or a propagandist, which is why he, as a non-LDS, may tend to have a better grasp of our LDS beliefs, and why discussions with him may prove more productive, and why he may more likely be appreciated and recommended by LDS.

I suspect, though, that it would take someone who is not dogmatic and not a propagandist to get this.

Be that as it may, the one benefit of Rob posting here is that it brought Blair out apologetic hibernation. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 7, 2012 by wenglund

[Pahoran]

Actually, I didn't say that God wasn't the unknown god. What I said, in response to Bill Hamblin, was that the "unknown God" that Paul offered to tell the Athenians about was not a pagan Greek deity.

But the real point was not that the "unknown God" was a pagan Greek deity; the real point is that Paul was willing to teach his audience using (1) their religious understanding as his starting point, and (2) their religious vocabulary as his "vector," if you will.

And Ammon does exactly the same thing.

Let me begin here:

"And now, when the king heard these words, he said unto them: Now I know that it is the Great Spirit; and he has come down at this time to preserve your lives, that I might not slay you as I did your brethren. Now this is the Great Spirit of whom our fathers have spoken. Now this was the tradition of Lamoni, which he had received from his father, that there was a Great Spirit. Notwithstanding they believed in a Great Spirit, they supposed that whatsoever they did was right; nevertheless, Lamoni began to fear exceedingly, with fear lest he had done wrong in slaying his servants" (Alma 18:4-5).

Now, the Book of Mormon does make it clear that Lamoni's people had some false traditions, so in that context one might suppose that their belief that God was a Spirit would be one of those false traditions. However, the clause, "Notwithstanding they believed in a Great Spirit," followed by the critical remark that they thought whatever they did was right, seems to imply that their belief in a Great Spirit was a good belief. The logic of the sentence is, "Even though they had this right, they had this other thing wrong."

Thank you for telling us(!!) what our(!!) scriptures mean. But you are wrong. The real sense of it is simply this: "Even though they believed in a supreme being, their belief did not constrain their moral choices." A parallel statement might be, "Even though Gorbachev believed in communism, that didn't stop him having a nice dacha in the Lenin hills." The significance of that observation does not rest upon the speaker believing in communism.

We can see that Lamoni's beliefs were not all wrong when later in the same passage he asks:

"Art thou that Great Spirit, who knows all things?" (v. 18).

And he is speaking to an obviously physical guy who ate and slept and sweated and could handle a sword.

As his belief that God knows all things was correct, it is possible that his belief that God was a Great Spirit was also correct, as verse 5 appears to imply.

You have subtly smuggled in your assumptions, and are now using them to actually determine your interpretation of the passage.

It is apparent to all (who read this passage without an agenda) that Lamoni is using "Great Spirit" as a nominative label, if not an outright proper noun, and not as a descriptive phrase. Lamoni did not "believe that God was a Great Spirit." He had a vague belief in a supreme being, and he denoted that being as "the" (not a) "Great Spirit."

"And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God? And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth. And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yea. 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? And he said: Yea, I believe that he created all things which are in the earth; but I do not know the heavens. And Ammon said unto him: The heavens is a place where God dwells and all his holy angels" (vv. 24-30).

Lamoni says he doesn't know what the word "God" means and Ammon explains that by God he means the Great Spirit. You ask if this isn't like Paul quoting the Athenian altar to an unknown god and saying that he had come to tell them about the God they admitted they didn't know. Well, the altar to an unknown god was for the Athenians a generic reference, not a reference to one specific God; Paul's use of this generic reference is rhetorical in that he was taking their admission of ignorance and using it to introduce the revelation of the specific God. In a literal sense, though, the description "unknown god" applies perfectly to Paul's God: the Athenians literally did not know that God, so to them he was literally an unknown god. So if you want to press the parallel, we should say that Ammon's God was literally the Great Spirit. And up to this point in the passage, we have no reason not to take it that way.

As I said: "the Great Spirit" is nominative, not descriptive. You are indulging in eisegesis, not exegesis.

"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" (v. 34).

Part of the evidence to be considered in deciding if the description of God as "the Great Spirit"

There's that unsupported assumption again.

is to be taken as accepted by Ammon is to see what else Ammon affirms about God and about man's relationship with God. What we find is that God knows all things, that he created all things in the heavens and on the earth, and that he created man in the beginning after his image. All of these affirmations fit very comfortably in the traditional monotheistic world view of one God who is Spirit and who makes the physical world and everything in it, including man. That man -- not just his body -- is said to have been "created" in God's image likewise fits in this world view.

That woolly language about "world view" is much too vague. Ammon is paraphrasing Genesis.

That is, human beings are temporal creatures, with the first man brought into existence by an act of creation. In this context the "image" language does not imply that God is himself a man, although the Book of Mormon does understand the "image" language to imply that God was in some sense anthropomorphic. The very text that reveals this understanding also reveals that God was not a man -- yet:

"And because he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth" (Mos. 7:27).

According to this text, man was made to look like God in some way, and God was later to come down and take on the image of man, taking on flesh and blood. This clearly means that God had not already been a being of flesh, but was going to take on flesh when he came as a flesh and blood mortal.

I will pass over the "not already" assumption and point out that you are equivocating on the use of the word "image." You argue that when talking about man in the image of God, "image" refers only to what man looks like, but when talking about the then-future God in the image of man, "image" suddenly refers to what God is made of.

Is there an interpretation of this passage that makes sense without relying upon equivocation? I put it to you that there is.

If we assume some coherence in these passages, as I think we should, then in Alma 18 the God whom Ammon calls the Great Spirit

Wrong, sorry. Lamoni uses that name; Ammon merely picks up on it for teaching purposes.

is Christ, who was at the time not a being of flesh but rather one of spirit. And if you'll review the discussion in this thread you'll see that other Mormons have proffered that explanation for Alma 18. And they are right, but then they want to suggest that this leaves open the door for the idea that God the Father, as distinct from Christ, was a being of flesh. That idea is found nowhere in the Book of Mormon or in any statement by Joseph Smith prior to the 1840s. Furthermore, the emphatic statements in the Book of Mormon that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God -- and that Christ is the Father and the Son -- are most naturally understood to preclude the idea of the Father and the Son as two Gods with two different kinds of bodies, one of flesh and the other of spirit.

"Are most naturally understood" by whom, exactly?

The use of the passive voice is often a clever way to avoid taking responsiblity for an assertion. But let's trace this one back where it belongs, shall we?

"But this is not all; for he expounded unto them the plan of redemption, which was prepared from the foundation of the world; and he also made known unto them concerning the coming of Christ, and all the works of the Lord did he make known unto them. And it came to pass that after he had said all these things, and expounded them to the king, that the king believed all his words. And he began to cry unto the Lord, saying: O Lord, have mercy; according to thy abundant mercy which thou hast had upon the people of Nephi, have upon me, and my people" (vv. 39-41).

You asked if it is not the case that Lamoni corrects his language because now, instead of referring to God as the Great Spirit, he addresses him in prayer as "Lord." I see no "correction" here. The title Lord in no way implies any correction of or rejection of the title Great Spirit. He uses the title Lord, which he learned from Ammon, just as he learned the title God, but neither title contradicts or corrects the title Great Spirit.

Firstly: thank you for admitting (at last) that "Great Spirit" is a title, not a descriptive phrase.

But you are ignoring the very important point here: the Lamanites only use the title "Great Spirit" before the missionaries have taught them. After they have been taught, converted and baptised, that title disappears from their religious vocabulary, never to be seen or heard from again. The correct way to read the Book of Mormon is to remember that, as an abridgement, it is not going to report every word of every conversation, but to summarise the highlights. IOW, there is no need to be told that Ammon said "Don't call God the Great Spirit any more," when the record shows that, after being taught by Ammon, they don't call God the Great Spirit any more, even though they've used that terminology all their lives before that point.

My study of Alma 18 leads me to conclude that the description

GONG!!!!

It's not a "description." It's a title. That is obvious to every reader, including you, when you forget your agenda for a moment.

of God as the Great Spirit receives no correction from Ammon or anyone else anywhere in the passage or in the Book of Mormon. More broadly, this is just one piece of evidence that prior to the 1840s Joseph Smith conceived of God as spirit rather than as an exalted man of flesh.

No. it is not.

Your polemically determined agenda here is painfully obvious. Not only is Lamoni's traditional title for the Supreme Being not evidence of what Joseph Smith believed, it is not even evidence of what Ammon believed. In fact, as a mere title, it scarcely even qualifies as evidence for what Lamoni believed!

Lamoni uses that title because it's all he's got -- he doesn't even know what the word "God" means -- not because it encapsulates significant ontological information about any being.

Ammon uses the title because it's all Lamoni has, and as a good missionary, he has to start somewhere. Lamoni abandons the use of the term as soon as Ammon's teaching takes hold.

The notion that Joseph Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon is boilerplate anti-Mormonism. It is a plainly circular argument to smuggle your conclusions into your argument.

And besides: of course your interpretation of the Book of Mormon supports your anti-Mormon agenda; why else would you bother with it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Loran Blood]

Apparently you want to have your philosophy cake and eat it too. Trinitarians are not allowed to learn anything from Platonism or use any philosophical terminology or categories to explain or articulate their belief, because doctrine should come from revelation and not philosophy;

But as LDS and numerous Catholic and secular theologians and historians have long pointed out, Hellenistic philosophy is precisely where the concept of the Trinity comes from. Based on the OT and NT alone, both ancient Israelites and NT Christians would have had no idea whatever what we were talking about were we to walk up to them and recite the Nicene Creed. I'll take my philosophy cake, eat it, and wash it down with some ice cold moo juice, thank you.

but Mormons may use philosophy to critique trinitarianism and do not need to take seriously the trinitarian appeal to biblical revelation as the foundation of their doctrine.

Philosophy is a wonderful tool, used properly and with the proper background. Brigham said "Bring it to Zion." Rob, do you not get that the Trinitarian appeal to biblical revelation as the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity is the very claim I'm pointing to as problematic?

Edited February 7, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Calm]

calmoriah,

I won't prejudge the matter either way. I'll listen to what you have to say and whatever reasons or explanations you give, and I'll take it as seriously as I can. But Cal, I don't understand what it would mean to try to make a good-faith effort and fail. A good-faith effort simply means the same thing as trying to make such an effort. Trying to do something and making an effort to do something are the same thing.

I think someone can fool themselves that they are making a good faith effort when they really are not, just as someone can fool themselves that they are loving and kind when really they are self-centered and cold.

[KevinG]

I know I said I'd step out of commenting here but did anyone else notice the dichotomy between "faithful Mormons" and "honest Mormons"?

It is precisely this kind of condescending assumption that makes me doubt the motives of IRR and Rob.

[Loran Blood]

I know I said I'd step out of commenting here but did anyone else notice the dichotomy between "faithful Mormons" and "honest Mormons"?

It is precisely this kind of condescending assumption that makes me doubt the motives of IRR and Rob.

Do I detect something similar to the chapel/Internet contrast here?

Edited February 7, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Rob Bowman]

Blair,

I see. You want to say that I'm not claiming that the work is scholarly but that I'm pretending that it's scholarly. This is parsing with a vengeance. Claims can be implicit as well as explicit, and if I pretended that it was scholarly, that was an implicit claim that it was scholarly. But thanks anyway for the clarification.

I will repeat: The Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide does not claim to be a purely academic work, written for scholars. It is, however, written by a scholar and is based on scholarly study. As a popular work, it does not display that scholarship in an overt way. It does not cross every t and dot every i, because that would make it unreadable to the vast majority of people. So it won't launch into a lengthy academic review of the literature before every assertion or with regard to every text on which it comments. It is not a dissertation, nor do I pretend that it is, nor do I claim that it is, nor does anyone with an ounce of common sense think it should be one. But common sense often flies out the window where religion is concerned.

So many Mormons operate by this sort of double standard. So many of you make all sorts of excuses when your founding Prophet makes the most egregiously false statements about objective, factual matters of biblical scholarship, statements that are just flat wrong on any reasonable assessment, but if anyone dares to interpret one of your texts differently than you do, you nitpick and find fault with him for failing to produce an academic tome defending his interpretation. In case you are wondering what sort of statement by the Prophet I have in mind, here is a classic example:

There has been much said by modern divines about the words of Jesus (when on the cross) to the thief, saying, This day shalt thou be with me in paradise. King James translators make it out to say paradise. But what is paradise? It is a modern word: it does not answer at all to the original word that Jesus made use of. Find the original of the word paradise. You may as easily find a needle in a haymow. Here is a chance for battle, ye learned men. There is nothing in the original word in Greek from which this was taken that signifies paradise; but it was This day thou shalt be with me in the world of spirits: then I will teach you all about it and answer your inquiries (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 310; History of the Church 5:424-25).

This is embarrassingly wrong, because, as everyone who has ever looked into the matter knows, the original word in the Greek of Luke 23:43 is in fact PARADEISO. Joseph Smith challenged the "learned men" to "battle," but one does not need to be a learned man to discover in two seconds that he was just flat wrong. I discuss this point in the GPSSG, by the way, in response to chapter 41 of Gospel Principles. No one would have expected Joseph Smith to be a biblical scholar; he invited criticism, however, by challenging biblical scholars to do intellectual battle with him on this issue (and this isn't the only time he did so).

I will say again: I'm not looking for Mormon editorial assistance. I simply got tired of Mormons on this forum mouthing off about how biased, prejudiced, unfair, hateful, ignorant, deceiving, etc., I supposedly am, so I issued the challenge. No one needs to pay it any attention. So far only one person has offered to make the effort. That's fine. I didn't expect more.

[Rob Bowman]

Since I am not allowed to provide links to web pages on IRR's website, but everyone here is permitted to trash it, I think it is appropriate for me to quote some portions of my Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide to illustrate my claim that in that work I make a good-faith effort to represent Mormon beliefs fairly. In particular, I make a concerted effort to acknowledge what Mormons get right.

Here is the opening section of my article on the Mormon view of Jesus Christ, responding to GP 11.

=======================================================

The LDS Church emphatically claims to be “the Church of Jesus Christ” and insists that faith in Jesus Christ is absolutely central to their religion. We should not ignore or dismiss this claim without a fair examination. In particular, we should take careful notice of the truths about Jesus Christ that the LDS religion affirms and that they share in common with historic, orthodox Christianity. Even a simple list of these affirmations will show that there is considerable truth within the LDS belief system concerning Jesus Christ:

• Jesus was a descendant of King David (Matthew 1:1-17; 9:27; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9, 15; Mark 10:47-48; Luke 1:32; 3:23-32; 18:38-39; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8; Revelation 5:5; 22:16).
  
• Jesus’ mother was a young Jewish woman named Mary, and Joseph was not his biological father (Matthew 1:19-25; Luke 1:26-34).
  
• Jesus was born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth (Matthew 2:1, 23; 4:13; Luke 2:1-21, 39-40, 51-52; 4:16).
  
• Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist (Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22).
  
• Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life, despite the temptations of the devil (Matthew 4:1-11; 27:3, 19; Mark 1:13; 7:37; Luke 4:1-13; 23:41, 47; John 8:27, 46; Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 1:9; 2:17-18; 4:15; 7:26; 1 Peter 1:19; 2:21-22; 3:18; 1 John 2:1, 20; 3:5).
  
• Jesus loved people perfectly and felt deep compassion for them (Matthew 9:36; 14:14; 15:32; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 6:34; 8:2; 10:21; Luke 7:13; John 11:3, 5, 36; 13:1, 34; 15:9-13).
  
• Jesus performed the miracles reported in the Gospels—casting out demons, healing people’s diseases, turning water into wine, feeding the multitude, making the blind to see and the lame to walk, walking on the sea, and even raising people from the dead (e.g., Matthew 8:23-27; 11:2-6; 14:13-33; 15:32-39; 17:24-27; Mark 1:23-27; 5:19-20; Luke 5:1-11; 7:11-16; John 2:1-11; 9:1-7; 11:1-46; 21:1-14).
  
• Jesus chose apostles to speak for him and be the original leaders of the church (Matthew 10:1-5; Mark 3:14-19; Luke 6:13-16).
  
• Jesus suffered and was sentenced by Pontius Pilate to death on the cross (Matthew 26-27; Mark 14-15; Luke 22-23; John 18-19).
  
• Jesus rose physically from the grave on the third day to immortal physical life and appeared to his disciples (Matthew 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20-21; Acts 2:24-32; 13:30-37; Romans 4:24-25; 8:11; 10:9; 1 Corinthians 15:4-23; Galatians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; etc.).
  
• Jesus ascended into heaven (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9-11; 2:33-35; 1 Peter 3:22).
  
• Jesus will return personally, bodily, and visibly to the earth to destroy the wicked, raise the dead, and administer judgment (John 5:28-29; 6:40, 54; 10:27-28; Acts 3:19-21; 17:30-31; 1 Thessalonians 4:16; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10; 2 Timothy 4:1, 8; Titus 2:13-14; Hebrews 9:26-28; Revelation 22:7, 12, 20; etc.).
  

We gladly acknowledge that Mormons share these beliefs about Jesus Christ in common with historic Christianity. Every one of these affirmations is part of the biblical, orthodox Christian faith. Since Mormons often have the perception that orthodox Christians do not believe in the physical resurrection of Christ, we should emphasize that this is indeed something we believe. Jesus still has, and forever will have, a glorified, immortal physical body (Luke 24:39; Romans 8:11; 1 Corinthians 15:42-57).

Edited February 7, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[KevinG]

Rob you brought up the fact that you are a religious scholar as an appeal to authority. Please don't feign offense or victimization at the hands of a people who you are calling dishonest simply because they cite authorities you do not care for.

The higher burden of proof belongs to the person publishing "expertise" about other peoples beliefs.

[KevinG]

I haven't seen anyone arguing with your opening paragraph. Do you feel it somehow covers you from the parts they do argue with?

[Rob Bowman]

Here is the first part of my article commenting on chapters 31-32 of GP. I wish I could quote the whole thing, but perhaps this will encourage some of you to take a look at the rest of the article.

===============================

Perhaps the two best chapters in the LDS manual Gospel Principles are chapters 30 and 31, which discuss “Charity” and “Honesty.” These chapters make excellent points regarding both topics and show that LDS religion at its best reflects substantial agreement with some basic Christian values. Among the many important affirmations found in these chapters are the following:

• Jesus Christ is our primary example of pure love (173, 177).
  
• Love (charity) is “the greatest of all virtues” (173).
  
• If we love, we will give to people in need whether or not they are our friends or deserve our help (175).
  
• Love includes feeding the poor and meeting other basic needs (175).
  
• Saving people’s souls is also a labor of love (176).
  
• Love is not just doing good things for others but a disposition of kindness and compassion from the heart (176-77).
  
• Those who do not forgive others show a lack of true love (176).
  
• Like Jesus, we can despise wickedness even while we love sinners (176-77).
  
• We should ask God in prayer to make us more loving toward others (177).
  
• We should “avoid thinking we are better than other people” (177).
  
• God is perfectly honest and expects his people to be honest (179).
  
• Lying is of the devil, who tempts us to justify our falsehoods if they seem harmless (179, 181).
  
• Any intentional deception is lying, including withholding the truth (“silence”), “telling only part of the truth,” or misleading people “to believe something that is not true” (181).
  
• We will have to give an account to God for our lies (181).
  
• Taking what does not belong to us is dishonest (181).
  
• Taking unfair advantage of others is dishonest (181-82).
  
• When people lie to protect themselves, the Lord does not consider that an acceptable excuse (182).
  
• We should examine ourselves and repent of all dishonesty no matter what it costs us (182).
  

In this study, we will not be offering any critique of these two chapters of Gospel Principles. Instead, we will discuss the relevance of the two basic Christian values of love and truthfulness that the two chapters so commendably articulate to a very controversial issue: the expression of religious and theological disagreements between Mormons and evangelical Christians. That is, we will take a careful look at how these two values should affect the way we defend our beliefs and respond to the beliefs of others when they disagree with our own.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Ares]

Please skip the personal remarks and retorts. Peoples actions and willingness to be responsible for their own writings will speak for itself.

There are some breakoff threads addressing specific issues with things presented by IRR and Rob. This general challenge has broken down and been done for a while. Please use topic specific threads to address issues with IRR and how it presents Mormonism. Hopefully that will be more productive than a catch all thread.

[Rob Bowman]

Here is the opening material from my article commenting on chapters 26-28 of Gospel Principles. It illustrates my efforts to place whatever disagreements I have with LDS teaching in the context of appreciation for genuine agreements.

========================================

A note for teachers at the beginning of chapter 26 of Gospel Principles states, “You do not need to teach everything in each chapter” (149). Nor is it necessary for us to comment on everything in each chapter, especially since in some chapters, such as the three we will consider here, we agree with most that is said. Chapters 26-28 of Gospel Principles make a number of statements with which we can and should agree:

• People who are truly devoted to God will be willing to sacrifice anything and everything.
  
• Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice for sins.
  
• Jesus’ sacrificial atonement brought an end to animal sacrifices.
  
• God expects us to humble ourselves and repent of our sins.
  
• Work is a good thing and something God expects us to do.
  
• Idleness and irresponsibility are sin.
  
• Parents are responsible to care for their children.
  
• Any honest work can and should be done as service to God.
  
• God expects all people to be active in serving one another.
  
• Helping other people is a way to serve God.
  
• Jesus was the perfect example of service.
  

These affirmations reflect considerable agreement between LDS teaching and values and those of Bible-believing, evangelical Christians, and we should not gloss over these common beliefs and values. There are, however, two points that deserve to be noted with regard to the teaching of Gospel Principles in these chapters:

1. Gospel Principles equates willingness to sacrifice everything for the Lord with willingness to sacrifice “everything we have for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (151).
   
2. Gospel Principles teaches that sacrifice, work, and service, though not required for salvation to one of the heavenly kingdoms, is required for “eternal life” in the presence of God the Father (151, 153, 159-60).