Who Is The "Great Spirit"? (IRR Challenged)

[KevinG]

This point made by Pahoran is devastating to any non-LDS Christian who takes it upon themself to try and use the Book of Mormon against any LDS doctrines or policies. It bears repeating:

"Actually it's a rather uncontroversial principle that the proper way to read any book is in the historical setting it claims for itself."

Ahhh... but as Mormons and in particular Joseph Smith was a liar and charlitan it is up to defenders of the true gospel to demonstrate the internal inconsistencies of those lies and blow apart the hellspawned cult at its very foundations.

There is no amount of schoarly integrity that cannot be sacrificed in the means of completing this cleansing of the world from the dreaded threat of Mormonism.

Edited February 9, 2012 by DaddyG

[Nevo]

If I, in my LDS view, rightly call my own spirit, "the Father," and my flesh, "the Son," does this mean that I am describing God the Father as a "spirit"?... It is using the mortal Jesus as an exempliary to give us a view into our own human souls.

I rather doubt that is what Abinadi had in mind, but it's an interesting take all the same.

[wenglund]

I rather doubt that is what Abinadi had in mind, but it's an interesting take all the same.

I think my comments fit well, at least symbolically, with the whole context of Mosiah 15 (i.e. "They and all the holy prophets are his [Christ's] seed—He brings to pass the Resurrection..."), and makes for an insightful companion to Romans 8. But, that may just be me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

I'd like to see that prominent Mormon website and determine if its role is similar to your website for myself. Are you ready to post it yet?

Mind you to be roughly equivelent to yours it must:

Teach about specific religions (donominations) and why they don't understand their own doctrines.

Stop it! I don't claim that Mormons "don't understand their own doctrines."

Your next criterion:

Be sponsored by a ministry or church (no amateur opinions here)

Don't worry, it passes this criterion with flying colors.

Next criterion:

and employ a full time ministerial researcher

I did not promise that the website would be the work of an organization that employs "a full time ministerial researcher." However, I have checked, and at least some of the articles on the website are in fact produced by a full-time Mormon researcher (scholar, writer, etc.). So it passes this criterion as well.

Here is what you can look forward to seeing. I will present you with an example of a Mormon website that does some of the things you criticized about our website. Specifically, it will be a website that does the following things. (1) In it "Mormons [claim to] tell the truth about what Evangelicals really [believe]," and in the process misrepresent what evangelicals believe. (2) The website sharply criticizes (your term was "tears down") orthodox Christian churches and beliefs. (3) The website claims to show that "what the Bible really teaches" is not what orthodox Christians believe. (4) The website also shows that Mormon missionaries are sent out to teach evangelicals and other orthodox Christians "what the Bible really means." (5) The website will express criticisms of specific denominations. Furthermore, this website will be one that is beyond any plausible dispute representative of Mormonism, and its articles will be written by individuals who are clearly themselves representative of Mormonism and in some cases are professional, paid employees of a recognized Mormon institution directly associated with their published writings.

A website that meets all of these criteria should satisfy any reasonable conditions for parity as far as your criticisms of IRR and its website are concerned.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Nevo]

This point made by Pahoran is devastating to any non-LDS Christian who takes it upon themself to try and use the Book of Mormon against any LDS doctrines or policies. It bears repeating:

"Actually it's a rather uncontroversial principle that the proper way to read any book is in the historical setting it claims for itself."

It may bear repeating, but is it true? The Book of Mormon as a historical artifact—that is, the English text dictated by Joseph Smith in western New York and northern Pennsylvania in the late 1820s—dates to 1830. It purports to be a translation of an ancient record, but it nevertheless addresses itself to nineteenth-century American readers and their concerns. It is hardly does the Book of Mormon an injustice to read it against a circa 1830 backdrop when the text itself invites readers to do exactly that.

Incidently, I can think of a great many biblical scholars that would disagree with Pahoran's "uncontroversial principle" that the proper way to engage a text is to accept at face value "the historical setting it claims for itself."

Edited February 9, 2012 by Nevo

[wenglund]

What they are not free to do is teach in an official capacity that what I see is the wrong interpretation of my own beliefs and present tham as what I really believe or what I really should believe.

I think they are free to do that as well. It is just that it isn't fair and reasonable or credible, nor does it work in interfaith dialogue, though it may have some propoganda value when the religiously insecure preach against other faiths to the choir (which is typically why it is done).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JDave]

A website that meets all of these criteria should satisfy any reasonable conditions for parity as far as your criticisms of IRR and its website are concerned.

Just post in a different thread, ok?

[Rob Bowman]

Dave,

You wrote:

That doesn't address the issue. I said that the context points away from an ontological equivalence being presented. It is much more likely that the missionaries are saying, "Yes there is a deity", rather than, "Yes, your ontological concept of God is correct."

You're still begging the question.

You wrote:

Show me where it is used as a description. Bonus points if you can quote a Nephite.

Did you read my response to Pahoran, which I linked for you? I get those bonus points, by the way.

I said nothing about accepting the Book of Mormon as ancient. If my arguments included appeals to how people would have acted at about 90 B.C. (the estimated timeframe of the missionary efforts in question), then I agree that I would be reading my presupposed timeframe into the text. But I don't. You, however, read into the text some of Joseph Smith's supposed refining of his beliefs about the nature of God. You say that it should be read in its "historical context". Unless you are referring to 90 B.C., you are referring to your presupposed timeframe of the 1820s.

Look, this isn't that hard. Joseph Smith, by his account, translated the Book of Mormon in 1829 and published it in 1830. That is the historical context in which the Book of Mormon appeared in modern times. I don't see anything wrong, even in a Mormon context, in looking at it in that historical context.

When we compare the Book of Mormon with Joseph Smith's theology in his revelations and sermons, we find a close match with his theology in 1829-1830, a gradually widening difference with his theology in roughly 1831-1841 or so in two stages (binitarian and then something like ditheism), and a radical difference emerging in about 1842-1844. That can't be a coincidence. Remember, if we date the revelations by their supposed original date, we get something like this (dates are approximations):

1850 BC Book of Abraham: polytheism

1400 BC Book of Moses: binitarian (God + his Son)

600 BC - AD 400 Book of Mormon: monotheism

1829-1830 early Joseph Smith: monotheism

1831-1835 middle Joseph Smith, stage 1: binitarian (God + his Son)

1835-1841 middle Joseph Smith, stage 2: ditheism (two separate beings)

1842-1844 late Joseph Smith: polytheism

Now put these alleged revelations in chronological order by when they appear in modern times:

1829 Book of Mormon: monotheism

1829-1830 early Joseph Smith: monotheism

1830-1831 Book of Moses: binitarian

1831-1835 middle Joseph Smith, stage 1: binitarian

1835-1841 middle Joseph Smith, stage 2: ditheism

1835, 1842 Book of Abraham: polytheism

1842-1844 late Joseph Smith: polytheism

Looking at these things historically, it sure looks like the Books of Mormon, Moses, and Abraham were part of Joseph Smith's developing theology between 1829 and 1844.

You wrote:

I don't think that's really pertinent to the discussion at hand, but indeed it would not be a theological problem for me if the Book of Mormon taught that God was Spirit. I believe in the Bible, and the Bible states as much.

That isn't what I asked. Feel free to ask a different question and then answer it, but my question remains unanswered. Saying it isn't pertinent is silly; it goes to the heart of the discussion we have been having.

[Rob Bowman]

Dave,

You wrote:

Just post in a different thread, ok?

Don't worry, I will.

[JDave]

It may bear repeating, but is it true? The Book of Mormon as a historical artifact—that is, the English text dictated by Joseph Smith in western New York and northern Pennsylvania in the late 1820s—dates to 1830. It purports to be a translation of an ancient record, but it nevertheless addresses itself to 19th-century American readers and their concerns. It is hardly does the Book of Mormon an injustice to read it against an 1820s backdrop when the text itself invites readers to do exactly that.

Example?

Incidently, I can think of a great many biblical scholars that would disagree with Pahoran's "uncontroversial principle" that the proper way to engage a text is to accept at face value "the historical setting it claims for itself."

I was just writing a response when I saw yours. I also question simply assuming the claimed date is accurate. If the book is of disputed origin, and no evidence of its existence pre-dates the 1820s, then such an assumption seems unwarranted. Didn't Nibley produce a ton of work in order to show that the Book of Mormon is consistent with the various milieus it claims to cover?

For the specific topic of this thread, Rob asserts that the Book of Mormon teaches that God the Father is a Spirit. This point is then used (outside of this thread) to bolster the case that Joseph Smith's ideas about the nature of God changed over time. That can also be used to argue that the Book of Mormon reflects Joseph Smith's theology during the 1820s and thus argue that the Book of Mormon is a product of the 1820s. I don't see much wrong with the overall approach, though I disagree with the conclusions. If, however, Rob thinks that the 1820s "historical context" of the Book of Mormon can then be used to prove or bolster the case that the Book of Mormon teaches that God the Father is a Spirit... well we have come full circle on a circular argument.

[wenglund]

1850 BC Book of Abraham: polytheism

1400 BC Book of Moses: binitarian (God + his Son)

600 BC - AD 400 Book of Mormon: monotheism

1829-1830 early Joseph Smith: monotheism

1831-1835 middle Joseph Smith, stage 1: binitarian (God + his Son)

1835-1841 middle Joseph Smith, stage 2: ditheism (two separate beings)

1842-1844 late Joseph Smith: polytheism

Speaking of begging the question... LOL!

I noticed that you didn't include any references to the Bible.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 9, 2012 by wenglund

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

But, as you reluctantly admit, they are our scriptures too. The only real difference between our approach to them and yours is that we don't regard them with near-superstitious veneration.

You have been criticizing me for supposedly not making a good-faith effort to represent what you believe accurately, and there you go and egregiously misrepresent the way we evangelicals view the Bible. Moreover, it is obvious that you know enough about evangelicals to know that you are misrepresenting us.

Regarding the brouhaha over "the" versus "a" Great Spirit, naturally the Lamanites customarily referred to "the Great Spirit" because in their belief there was only one. But when Ammon asked Lamoni if he believed in "a Great Spirit," Lamoni said yes. Ammon clearly understood the expression as descriptive, and Lamoni didn't seem to have a problem with Ammon's usage. So what exactly did you prove on this point? Not much.

The fact is that titles are descriptive. "Lord" is descriptive, as is "Great Spirit." A title describes. It doesn't matter whether it has the indefinite article, the definite article, or no article at all. There is a reason why the American Indians called the deity "Great Spirit" instead of "Little Bird." I presume you think the Lamanites thought of the Great Spirit as great. So on what basis are some here trying to run around the obvious conclusion that they also thought of the Great Spirit as a spirit? On what basis are others, who concede that the Lamanites may have thought of the Great Spirit as a great spirit, insisting that the Nephites did not think of God that way? The fact that Lamoni after his conversion started referring to the deity as God and Lord is not an answer, since it doesn't tell us why he stopped using the title Great Spirit. Is it because (1) he no longer thought God was a spirit, as you seem to be arguing, or (2) he no longer thought God was great, which is obviously wrong but would seem to follow from the same semantic argument, or (3) because he accepted the Nephites' way of speaking about the Creator? The evidence supports (3), whereas (2) is obviously wrong and (1) over-reaches the evidence.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Dave, which he ducked. Would it be a problem for you theologically if the Book of Mormon taught a theology that did not agree with the later theology of the LDS Church? That is, are you committed theologically to the proposition that the Book of Mormon's doctrine of God must agree with the current LDS doctrine of God?

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

Speaking of begging the question... LOL!

I don't see any begging the question in what you quoted from me.

You wrote:

I noticed that you didn't include any references to the Bible.

That's because Joseph Smith didn't have anything to do with producing the Bible, as he did the Books of Mormon, Moses, and Abraham, his revelations in D&C, and his other sermons. But you raise a good point, and that is that I omitted the JST, except of course for the Book of Moses. Including it strengthens my case. Most of what Joseph did on the JST was done in 1830-1833. It reflects the same "binitarian" outlook as the Book of Moses and Joseph's revelations in the 1831-1835 period I mentioned.

[Rob Bowman]

Dave,

You wrote:

For the specific topic of this thread, Rob asserts that the Book of Mormon teaches that God the Father is a Spirit. This point is then used (outside of this thread) to bolster the case that Joseph Smith's ideas about the nature of God changed over time. That can also be used to argue that the Book of Mormon reflects Joseph Smith's theology during the 1820s and thus argue that the Book of Mormon is a product of the 1820s. I don't see much wrong with the overall approach, though I disagree with the conclusions. If, however, Rob thinks that the 1820s "historical context" of the Book of Mormon can then be used to prove or bolster the case that the Book of Mormon teaches that God the Father is a Spirit... well we have come full circle on a circular argument.

Fortunately, I don't engage in that circular reasoning.

[altersteve]

Looking at these things historically, it sure looks like the Books of Mormon, Moses, and Abraham were part of Joseph Smith's developing theology between 1829 and 1844.

Of course. Joseph Smith learned about the nature of God gradually throughout his life. Not all of it was revealed to him at once. The fact that his theology developed does not pose a problem for us, especially in light of our doctrine of continuing revelation. Doctrine that changes and develops is kind of what God is going for. Remember, in LDS doctrine, the word of God is revealed to the world "line upon line, precept by precept," and the way He looks after His children and how much of His doctrine that He reveals to them depends on their circumstances and level of understanding (see 2 Nephi 31:3).

[JDave]

You're still begging the question.

I don't see how.

Did you read my response to Pahoran, which I linked for you? I get those bonus points, by the way.

This is where it functions as a description?

"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" (Alma 18:5).

"And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yea" (Alma 18:26-27).

Look, this isn't that hard. Joseph Smith, by his account, translated the Book of Mormon in 1829 and published it in 1830. That is the historical context in which the Book of Mormon appeared in modern times. I don't see anything wrong, even in a Mormon context, in looking at it in that historical context.

You can't use the context to prove the context. And you can't use the publication date to say what the text means.

That isn't what I asked. Feel free to ask a different question and then answer it, but my question remains unanswered. Saying it isn't pertinent is silly; it goes to the heart of the discussion we have been having.

Unless you are again questioning whether I can critically consider the text and claiming that my analysis of the text is tainted by believing the book to be of divine origin while your analysis is pure and free of such constraints, I just don't see the pertinence.

[Nevo]

Example?

I was thinking here of the following statement by Terryl Givens:

Mormon readers expected to find contemporary connections because, first, Nephi charged his audience to consider the words he recorded 'and liken them unto [them]selves,' and second, as Moroni testified to his future readers, 'Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing' (1 Nephi 19:24; Morm. 8:35). Nineteenth-century parallels, in other words, are part and parcel of the self-proclaimed prophetic texture of the work and recognizing them is presented as the readerly obligation by the keepers of the plates....

To the Mormon orthodox, then, the Book of Mormon's status would be suspect if it did not evince remarkable relevance to the context in which it has been read. The Lord declared that the Book of Mormon would resolve ambiguous points of doctrine, and from the first, readers found it to do just that, sorting through sectarian confusions.

— Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 166.

[JDave]

I'll ask you the same question I asked Dave, which he ducked. Would it be a problem for you theologically if the Book of Mormon taught a theology that did not agree with the later theology of the LDS Church? That is, are you committed theologically to the proposition that the Book of Mormon's doctrine of God must agree with the current LDS doctrine of God?

What are you talking about? I thought my language was pretty clear.

I see no need to read later LDS theology into the Book of Mormon. There are instances where I very much don't, such as the heaven/hell dichotomy in the Book of Mormon versus the kindgoms of glory ideas shown in D&C 76. There is no theological necessity for a complete harmonization with later LDS theology. That is just a canard to say that Mormons can't critically consider their texts.

[JDave]

Fortunately, I don't engage in that circular reasoning.

Luckily, you seem to have left most of that behind in the old thread.

While I saw a bit of that circular reasoning in the old thread in appealing to Joseph Smith's theology outside the Book of Mormon, the only thing I see in this thread is saying that the Book of Mormon should be read within an 1820s historical context.

[EDITED for tone and clarity]

Edited February 10, 2012 by JDave

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

If I thought that Joseph's theology simply "developed" in the sense of growing more complete over time, that would not be problematic. The problem is, as I see it (and I realize you won't agree), is that Joseph's later theology contradicted his earlier theology. More troubling still, he boldly claimed against all evidence that he had not changed his theology on the controversial matter of polytheism.

Of course. Joseph Smith learned about the nature of God gradually throughout his life. Not all of it was revealed to him at once. The fact that his theology developed does not pose a problem for us, especially in light of our doctrine of continuing revelation. Doctrine that changes and develops is kind of what God is going for. Remember, in LDS doctrine, the word of God is revealed to the world "line upon line, precept by precept," and the way He looks after His children and how much of His doctrine that He reveals to them depends on their circumstances and level of understanding (see 2 Nephi 31:3).

[Mark Beesley]

The only reason some people may find fault with the theology of the Book of Mormon and/or Joseph Smith's "developing" theology is that they attempt to impose on the Book a purpose which it does not have.

The Book of Mormon is not intended to teach us about the nature of God, i.e. whether the Father is a Spirit being or a Physical being. The Book of Mormon is intended to teach us that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of the World, and to convince the world that salvation comes only through Christ. Any use of the Book of Mormon beyond that is fraught with peril, notwithstanding some of the isolated discourses found within its pages.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Mark Beesley

[Rob Bowman]

Mark,

You wrote:

The Book of Mormon is intended to teach us that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of the World, and to convince the world that salvation comes only through Christ. Any use of the Book of Mormon beyond that is fraught with peril, notwithstanding some of the isolated discourses found within its pages.

Ah, minimalism. Mark, we already have a scripture that does that. The New Testament has been teaching people for nearly 2000 years that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of the world, and it has led to billions of people throughout the world placing their faith in Christ for salvation. If that's the sole purpose of the Book of Mormon, then its purpose is redundant.

Mark, why do Mormons urge Christians who already believe in Jesus as the Christ and as Savior to read the Book of Mormon? Has its purpose not already been accomplished in them without it?

Edited February 9, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Pahoran]

You have been criticizing me for supposedly not making a good-faith effort to represent what you believe accurately, and there you go and egregiously misrepresent the way we evangelicals view the Bible. Moreover, it is obvious that you know enough about evangelicals to know that you are misrepresenting us.

Sorry, I don't believe I am.

I have talked to enough EV's who work themselves into a state of near-apoplectic rage at our blasphemous daring in presuming to even contemplate the bare possiblity that there might be errors in the Bible to know that "near-superstitious veneration" is a polite understatement.

And I have also talked to a number of EV's who insisted that if there was anything in the Book of Mormon or modern revelation that was not exactly the same as what was in the Bible, then it couldn't possibly be true. Which, even if it does not rise to the level of explicitly asserting the priority of the Bible over God, certainly does rely upon that priority for every practical purpose.

I'm not surprised that you don't see your religion that way, Rob. But I am surprised if you don't know how your co-religionists speak about such things.

Regarding the brouhaha over "the" versus "a" Great Spirit, naturally the Lamanites customarily referred to "the Great Spirit" because in their belief there was only one. But when Ammon asked Lamoni if he believed in "a Great Spirit," Lamoni said yes. Ammon clearly understood the expression as descriptive, and Lamoni didn't seem to have a problem with Ammon's usage. So what exactly did you prove on this point? Not much.

I proved that it was in all cases a title. As you know, and in fact at one point admitted; evidently when you forgot for a moment that you were supposed to be tendentiously arguing that it was a linguistically precise description of ontological realities.

The fact is that titles are descriptive. "Lord" is descriptive, as is "Great Spirit." A title describes. It doesn't matter whether it has the indefinite article, the definite article, or no article at all. There is a reason why the American Indians called the deity "Great Spirit" instead of "Little Bird."

Titles may have some descriptive value. But whatever descriptive elements a title may initially contain, the actual descriptive content degrades over time as the use of the title becomes merely traditional.

When Nelson Mandela's praise-singers called him a "great buffalo" to his face, they could clearly see that he had two legs and no horns. But I wonder: two thousand years hence, what might a forty-first century Bowman make of that title, which is so clearly "descriptive?"

I presume you think the Lamanites thought of the Great Spirit as great. So on what basis are some here trying to run around the obvious conclusion that they also thought of the Great Spirit as a spirit?

Perhaps on the basis of the fact that we have no information about what, if anything, the Lamanites actually thought a "spirit" might entail. As has been pointed out to you several times, and you have so blithely ignored, Lamoni was close to being convinced that the obviously human, unquestionably material (and very strong) Ammon was that selfsame "Great Spirit." Given that you have not addressed this important piece of textual evidence, it is clear that whoever is trying to "run around" anything, his middle initials might be "Rob Bowman."

On what basis are others, who concede that the Lamanites may have thought of the Great Spirit as a great spirit, insisting that the Nephites did not think of God that way? The fact that Lamoni after his conversion started referring to the deity as God and Lord is not an answer, since it doesn't tell us why he stopped using the title Great Spirit. Is it because (1) he no longer thought God was a spirit, as you seem to be arguing, or (2) he no longer thought God was great, which is obviously wrong but would seem to follow from the same semantic argument, or (3) because he accepted the Nephites' way of speaking about the Creator? The evidence supports (3), whereas (2) is obviously wrong and (1) over-reaches the evidence.

Thank you for demonstrating your determination not to allow the text to influence your opinions in any way. If you had actually read the excerpt I posted from Alma 24, you would know that Lamoni continued to very consistently describe God as "great;" therefore your point 2 does not "seem to follow from the same semantic argument" at all, but is clearly contrary to fact.

The facts now left to you are these:

1. The title "Great Spirit" is exclusively a traditional Lamanite term.
   
2. The only time any Nephite uses that term is in the context of a missionary dialogue with a Lamanite, using that Lamanite's own limited understanding as the starting point.
   
3. The Lamanites abandon the use of that title almost as soon as they hear the missionaries' teaching, and they abandon it for ever.
   

Thus, the Lamanite title "Great Spirit" does not encapsulate any actual Book of Mormon teaching about God. If indeed the Book of Mormon teaches that God is (ontologically and only) a spirit, that teaching must be found elsewhere.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Dave, which he ducked. Would it be a problem for you theologically if the Book of Mormon taught a theology that did not agree with the later theology of the LDS Church? That is, are you committed theologically to the proposition that the Book of Mormon's doctrine of God must agree with the current LDS doctrine of God?

I don't see Dave ducking anything.

And no, it wouldn't bother me. As a follower of a church that explicitly believes in continuing revelation, I expect people living 2000+ years ago to understand less about God, Christ and salvation than we do now.

And in fact, as I read the Book of Mormon, I see very little "theology" therein, and what little there is must mostly be read between the lines. For example, for Nephi, the Lord is the one who (1) gives commandments, (2) makes their accomplishment possible, and (3) blesses the obedient. Not much apophatic or cataphatic theological information there, I think. I see each of the prophets having their own unique perspectives; I see a developing Christology and a rather subdued pneumatology throughout.

I also see that you have absolutely no intention of allowing anyone as irrelevant as a Book of Mormon believer to correct any of the polemics you publish in your so-called "study guide."

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited February 10, 2012 by Pahoran

[volgadon]

There is a reason why the American Indians called the deity "Great Spirit" instead of "Little Bird."

There is also a reason why Peter the Hideously Corpulent and Abnormally, Disproportionately Tall is not quite the same descriptor as "great."

[Nevo]

1850 BC Book of Abraham: polytheism

1400 BC Book of Moses: binitarian (God + his Son)

600 BC - AD 400 Book of Mormon: monotheism

1829-1830 early Joseph Smith: monotheism

1831-1835 middle Joseph Smith, stage 1: binitarian (God + his Son)

1835-1841 middle Joseph Smith, stage 2: ditheism (two separate beings)

1842-1844 late Joseph Smith: polytheism

But notice the elegant chiasm.