Bowman Study Guide: Exaltation, God And Man Part One

[Loran Blood]

Instead of attempting to go through an entire chapter in one long post, perhaps it will be best to take Rob's chapters argument by argument, in stride, and see where that goes. Deification poses yet another vast gulf to cross for evangelicals (and others) who have been taught that God is "wholly other" than human beings and that we are his "creatures" and not his sons and daugters. Though the Bible itself (and a number of ancient extra-canonical texts of similar provinance) are rather clear, either explicitly or implicitly on the matter, historical sectarian Christianity, as in many other areas, is opaque to such statements as they conflict with traditional conceptions originally influenced by Hellenistic mind/body and spirit/matter dichotomies (as well as beliefs about God's absolute otherness and transcendence of all normative concpetual catagories) that are, indeed, when a closer look is taken, foriegn to the scriptures themselves.

Robert begins his analysis of the final chapter of the Gospel Principles manual thus:

...from our standpoint as Bible-believing Christians, what is especially troubling and radically wrong with the LDS doctrine is what it says about the nature of God himself. We understand the LDS doctrine of exaltation to rest on a doctrine of God that is fundamentally at odds with what God has testified about himself in the Bible as well as what all of the major streams of traditional, historic Christianity have understood about the nature of God.

All well and good here, as Rob is here simply putting the cards on the table. Below, we see what the general approach will be:

...we will see that the LDS doctrine is contrary to the teaching of the Book of Mormon as well as Joseph Smith’s earliest doctrinal pronouncements about the nature of God. In the second part of this study, we will explain how this doctrine conflicts with the teaching of the Bible.

Already, a standard approach with Rob is apparent, which is to attempt to show that, because LDS doctrine developed, in increments over time, and did not come forth like Athena, fully fomed, from Joseph's head, it must therefore be the case that this developmentalism represents doctrines that were cobbled together, over time, by human imagination and extrapolation (in some ways, a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the entire body of the church's teachings much like the secular ex-Mormon approach to the Church's scriptures).

The reason why revelation, if a true principle, would not work with human beings in such incremental, developmental ways is not at all clear. But showing that Joseph's early concepts of God were less fleshed out and less detailed than his later teachings, or that certain concepts appering in church teaching at a later date are not found explicitly within the Book of Mormon, while eliciting oohs and ahhs from other evangelicals, does not impress Latter day Saints for whom an ordered development of the Kingdom of God, here a little, there a little, is exaclty what the gospel itself teaches and the very way the gospel is expected to progress.

We can just go over the few basic points Rob makes next, and see if they comport well with what LDS understand these same concepts and ideas to mean.

• 
  The Book of Mormon teaches a more or less traditional understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity.
  

The “Testimony of Three Witnesses,” signed by Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, appears in the front matter of every edition of the Book of Mormon. The Testimony concludes with the following doxology:

“And the honor be to

the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen

.”

This same language appears in the Book of Mormon text:

And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of

the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God

, without end. Amen

. (2 Ne. 31:21b)

…to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto

the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God

, in a state of happiness which hath no end. (Mormon 7:7)

The doxologies of honor and praises in the Testimony of Three Witnesses and in Mormon 7:7 clearly echo the doxology found, for example, in the

Book of Common Prayer

: “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.” The language used here and elsewhere in these earliest LDS texts is clearly that of the traditional belief in the doctrine of the Trinity.

Much could be said about this argument, but what immideiately strikes me is that the assertion that these doxologies represent a "traditional belief in the doctrine of the Trinity" is pure speculation on Rob's part, not to mention an exercise in the reading of the minds of the authors of the words he quotes. The Testimony of the Three Witnesses was penned in 1830, some ten years after the First Vision and after Joseph had known and worked with the signers for some time. The idea that these men did not have a sound understanding of the separate, distinct, and embodied nature of the Father and the Son as taught by Joseph and as his narrative of the First Vision makes unambiguously clear, is a fair stretch, at its very best. All of these signers, including Joseph himself, were embedded in the primarily Protestant Christian culture of their time and so, of course, saw nothing wrong in feeling at home with that terminology.

What Rob seems to miss here, yet again, is that since, for Latter day Saints, such a doxology would in no way seem improper or doctrinally disorienting for a modern church member, it could not possibly have seemed out of place to a 19th century member. Rob knows perfectly well, in any case, what the Church means by "one" when referencing the Godhead, so there appears to be some disenginuity in play here. He's not accruatly setting all the LDS cards out on the table, even if his own.

Ironically, its the church's own claim that when Jesus and his apostles said "the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one," they had nothing close to approximting the doctrine of the Trinity in mind, and Joseph himself, who had witnessed with his own eyes the final refutation of that doctrine, would hardly have been reticent about clarifying this core point to his closest associates.

Now notice the following:

This is not to say that the Book of Mormon perfectly or accurately reflects that doctrine. In places the Book of Mormon actually seems to identify Jesus Christ as both the Father and the Son (e.g., Mosiah 15:1-5; Mormon 9:12; Ether 3:14), which is not consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity.

Rob appears here innocent of the LDS concept of divine investiture of authority (and other symbolic ways in which the terms father and son can be ascribed both to the Father and Christ) and prefers, as always, to impose the tortouous philosophical concepts that came out of the Christological battles of the 3rd and 4th Century on each and ever verse or statement in which the Father and Son share name titles or devine responsibilities.

The relevant point here, though, is that the Book of Mormon emphatically and without qualification views the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as one God.

Sorry, but this is bordering on high tendentiousness. Joseph Smith wrote (translated by the gift and power of God, in LDS doctrine) the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith experienced a personal visit by the Father and the Son. Rob knows full well the manner in which the Church interprets the term "one" when used in referene to the Godhead, and as he has yet to posit a single logically cogent agument, or provide historical documentation as to the meaning the original witnesses attached to the term "one" as used in their own signed statements, as well as in the text of the BofM, it becomes a bit obvious that he is relying on pure conjecture grounded in his own particular biases (everything ends up being sucked into the vortex of the doctrine of the Trinity, no matter what other possiblities lie open, so long as the magic word "one" has been used somewher in some descriptive sense relating to God) in which he seeks to reference everything back into his own religous worldview.

The Book of Mormon teaches that God has always, from eternity past, been God.

The Book of Mormon explicitly teaches that God has been God without change from eternity past and will continue to be God to eternity future:

For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but

he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity

. (Moroni 8:18; see also Mosiah 3:5; Alma 13:7; Moroni 7:22; compare the similar statement in Psalm 90:2)

God lives in eternity, in which there is not past, present, or future, but a single, all encompassing moment. Unless Rob wants to delve into that can of worms, what I will say here is that this is, contrasting it with the rest of the gospel as a system, in no sense incompatible with the idea that God had an origin. I think one problem here may be the use of language, in which Rob says "eternity past" and "eternity future." Latter day Saints have used similar terms to, I think because of their poetic substance, but I don't think it works in a discussion of this sort.

God' s nature and character are unchanging and perfect and he dwells

in

eternity. Being

in

eternity, it becomes irrelevant whether he had an ultimate origin and development, and moved through different phases to become what he now is. When one is

in

eternity, one is, by definition, in that state

as a part of a state of existence without beginning or end.

Any being in such a state, regardless of origin, would then itself be beginningless and endless. Rob may take this as grasping at straws but I don' t think so. The idea of eternity past or eternity future is a problem, as these concepts would seem contradictory. The future can be infinite, but not eternal. Eternity is a coalascing of past, present, and future into a state of un-time, or timelessness. The real problem arises when trying to comprehend a past infinity. A line cannot logically or coherenty be extended into the past without end. Obviously, the gospel requres us to accept that it does, but we cannot do it rationally. We cannot concieve what that would be like. A line can extend, with a leading edge, forever into the future, but the past?

If any one of us were to become a god, we would be unchangable. If we existed in eternity, all of our attrubutes and characteristics would then be eternal as well. We would be gods from eterntiy and to eternity because

no other definition of eternity is possible.

There is no "point a to point b" in an eternal context.

I have no intention of attempting to hash this kind of thing out with Rob at great length, because it is not, in fact, made clear in the Bible or the Book of Mormon. It has been made clear in the inspired teachings of the Lord's living oracles for nearly two centuries now, and continues to be made ever clearer. The way to know if these things are true is to ask our Heavenly Father if they are true, and to want to know to the degree that you can't get to sleep at night until you do know. The Book of Mormon says that the Bible caused the Gentiles to "stumble," not because it isn't the word of God, but because it is the word of God deeply isolated from a much larger gospel and because of the significant cultural accretions layerd over it by historic Christianity. It is not possible to explain, let alone philosophically establish, the deeper mysteries of the universe as manifest in the gospel. Their truth can be experienced through the confirming witness of the Spirit of the Lord, but anything I or anyone else does here is merely saying what Gordon B. Hinckley used to say, "Come and see."

That's all I can do. Any philosophical defense of the gospel here is an attempt to fire the imagination and start one thinking "out of the box." I can't provide defense of any number of core gospel principles using the BofM or the earlies statements of the Brethren because, as Rob points out, all the doctrines did not exist similtaineously and did not come forth whole at the outset. This is a strike against the Church for Rob, but not for LDS who understnad their own doctrine in a systemic way.

What I'm saying here is, in substance, that there are, in fact, a number of scriptures (which the counter-cult has been using for generations) that do appear to clearly say God has always been God, and has no ultimate origin or development. What the restored gospel claims is that this is a misperception the origin of which is in the deep fragmentation, loss, and alteration of the scriptural record, as well as the use of symbolism, hyperbole, and multlayerd meanings within religious language. The way to overcome such problems of interpretation is through personal revelation (for which, in later stages, the Gift of the Holy Ghost becomes indispensible). I place my philosophcal critiques here as food for thought, not as preaching the gospel itself.

The Book of Mormon teaches that God is the sole Creator of all things.

According to the Book of Mormon, God “created all things” (2 Nephi 2:14-15, 22; Mosiah 4:2, 9; 5:15; 18:28-29; 22:10-11; 3 Nephi 9:15; Mormon 9:11). For example, it teaches that there would be nothing at all in existence without God:

And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon. (2 Nephi 2:13-14)

So does the Church. I'm not sure of the relevance of this point.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Loran Blood

[inquiringmind]

God lives in eternity, in which there is not past, present, or future, but a single, all encompassing moment. Unless Rob wants to delve into that can of worms, what I will say here is that this is...in no sense incompatible with the idea that God had an origin.

But if God had an origin in time, and He now lives in this timeless eternity ("in which there is not past, present, or future, but a single, all encompassing moment"), wouldn't "eternity" (something with no beginning or end)) be a product of time (something with a beginning)?

If "eternity" is non-linear ("a single, all encompassing moment"), isn't it much more likely that linear time is an outgrowth of this higher dimension (rather than the other way around)?

How is the idea of a God for whom time is one eternal now (without past, present, or future) "in no sense incompatible with the idea that God had an origin"?

Edited February 8, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Loran Blood]

But if God had an origin in time, and He now lives in this timeless eternity ("in which there is not past, present, or future, but a single, all encompassing moment"), wouldn't "eternity" (something with no beginning or end)) be a product of time (something with a beginning)?

How so? From a gospel perspective (and perhaps ultimately, an cosmological one), I would see eternity as the default position of reality (the totality of all reality) unless otherwise specified (a portion of it somewhere undergoes a creation event (Big Bang or similar occurance) a time is generated in that particular portion of reality.

If "eternity" is non-linear ("a single, all encompassing moment"), isn't it much more likely that linear time is an outgrowth of this higher dimension (rather than the other way around)?

I don't believe I was saying that eternity in some sense was a derivitive of time. What I've tried to get across (briefly) is that once an intelligent being (son of daugter of God) becomes exalted and enters into an eternal state of existence, that being becomes eternal. This means that, even though he/she had a beginning in time as to the process of developing toward godhood, any attributes developed, once they enter into an eternal state, are then eternal attributes; they have no time ascribed to them as no time exists within the state in which they are embedded. God can then both be unchanging and eternal as God, and at the same time have had a relative beginning as to a path of development from lower to higher degrees toward the ultimate state of perfection.

Its also the case that all of us, equally and in the same sense, are eternal beings who were never ultimately created. We are all (and all other forms of spirit matter and intelligence) eternal. Hence, to say that there never was a time that God did not exist is true, but is also just as true of all of us. The question is whether saying that God has always existed (the being qua being) is the same as saying God has always existed having the attributes, powers, and characteristics of God. I have always existed, from everlasting to everlasting, but not in the same size, shape, or even composed of the same matter as I am now, nor having the same intellectual, psychological, or emotional chacteristics.

Coming at the gospel this way (philosophcially) is difficult and one cannot be converted in this manner. It is fascinating to analyze things, once one's testimony is sure, from this kind of perspective as it adds flavor, spice, and depth to the core teachings of the gospel. I almost sense, sometimes, a kind of vertigo, standing on the precipice of the mysteries of the universe and peering over into a vast abyss of time, space, and knowledge and trying to take in the depth and expanse of it all. Its the gospel that makes that possible, however, and the idea that there are no limits to the possibilites of growth and increase in all my inherent capacities. If worthy, I may "inherit all things," as Christ tells John in the Book of Revelation, and the term "all" here is, I think, of utmost significance.

[inquiringmind]

I don't believe I was saying that eternity in some sense was a derivitive of time.

But the being we call "Heavenly Father" would be a derivative of time (if He had an origin), wouldn't He?

I would see eternity as the default position of reality

Not God?

God's not the default position of reality?

If He's not, wasn't Jacob mistaken when he said (in 2 Nephi 11:7) "if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation"?

Its also the case that all of us, equally and in the same sense, are eternal beings who were never ultimately created.

You seem to be saying that there's nothing all that unique about Heavenly Father.

He's not really at the heart of reality (or even the organizing principle), but just a part of it (a part that had an origin, and presumably had to be organized at some time in the past--even though He now lives in "a single all encompassing moment")?

The light and truth of intelligence is said to be eternal, and Heavenly Father is called the most intelligent of all (of all possible individuals, maybe?), but why would He (necessarily) be the most intelligent of all, if He's not particularly unique?

(If you do see Him as unique in some way, in what way do you see Him as unique?)

Edited February 8, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Loran Blood]

But the being we call "Heavenly Father" would be a derivative of time (if He had an origin), wouldn't He?

How so? In LDS theology, he is already eternal, in which case he cannot be "derived of time" (in what sense?) Certain phases of his development are necessarily manfested in time (such as mortality, primarily), but are not derived of it.

You seem to be saying that there's nothing all that unique about Heavenly Father.

In what way am I implying this?

He's not really at the heart of reality (or even the organizing principle), but just a part of it?

What does it mean for God to be "at the heart of reality?"

The restored gospel teaches us that God organized, designed, calibrated, and maintains the universe (and perhaps others) but it says nothing of reality.

The light and truth of intelligence is said to be eternal, and Heavenly Father is called the most intelligent of all (of all possible individuals, maybe?), but why would he (necessarily) be the most intelligent of all if He's not particularly unique?

In what way is God more unique with respect to you than you are with respect to me? That is to say, how is his perfect intelligence indicative of some greater uniqueness beyond a far vaster development of certain qualities?

Who are the "all" mentioned? Good question. All his specific spirit chidlren, or all possible spirit children in all possible worlds, within all possible universes throughout all possible reality?

If you do see Him as unique, in what way is He unique?

1. He is a perfect, supernal, omnipotent, onniscient, exalted man, who is the literal Father of my spirit and the supreme God of the universe. That makes him unique.

2. He is an eternal individual, and hence, unique by definition. He is who he is, and is like neither you nor me nor anyone else.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Loran Blood

[inquiringmind]

Certain phases of his development are necessarily manfested in time (such as mortality, primarily), but are not derived of it.

I'd like to continue this, but I need time to think about what you just said (and I suggest you do too--I think you may have said something very deep here.)

If a mortality phase of the Father's development could be manifested in time, without the resultant progress being derived from time, then God may have always had the benefit of that mortal phase (a body of flesh and bones.)

And He may have always been God.

P.S. Outside the King Follet Discourse (which I understand isn't official Church doctrine), I see no reason to believe He hasn't always been God.

Edited February 8, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Rob Bowman]

Loran,

You're really cranking out these posts. I appreciate the effort, though I'm not sure I can keep up!

Instead of attempting to go through an entire chapter in one long post, perhaps it will be best to take Rob's chapters argument by argument, in stride, and see where that goes. Deification poses yet another vast gulf to cross for evangelicals (and others) who have been taught that God is "wholly other" than human beings and that we are his "creatures" and not his sons and daugters. Though the Bible itself (and a number of ancient extra-canonical texts of similar provinance) are rather clear, either explicitly or implicitly on the matter, historical sectarian Christianity, as in many other areas, is opaque to such statements as they conflict with traditional conceptions originally influenced by Hellenistic mind/body and spirit/matter dichotomies (as well as beliefs about God's absolute otherness and transcendence of all normative concpetual catagories) that are, indeed, when a closer look is taken, foriegn to the scriptures themselves.

Nice opening statement. There are a lot of assertions here that I'm sure you realize I would dispute. Such is the nature of writing--one can never exhaustively defend each and every statement one makes. Sometimes folks here pounce whenever someone (such as I!) fails to do so. I don't wish to do that to you. Yet I must point out that you are painting with a very broad brush. Your claim that the Bible is very clear on the matter of deification is ironic, since if I ever claim the Bible to be clear on anything I routinely get razzed here for supposedly treating the Bible as "univocal," blah blah blah.

That the Bible teaches a doctrine that one might choose to call "deification" is clear enough to me. That this term adequately or accurately expresses what the Bible teaches is quite another matter. That the redeemed will become like God in some very significant and wonderful ways is definitely taught. That they will become Gods in the sense of beings of the same ontological attributes and exercising a similar role in their own worlds is not taught in the Bible anywhere. So much depends on what one means by deification.

I'd respectfully request that you drop the "sectarian" pejorative henceforth in our discussions. I consider it offensive in much the same way as you probably view the term "cultic" with regard to your own religion. The term "sectarian" serves no plausible or defensible distinction between orthodox Christians and Mormons; in one sense one might say that we represent different sects of Christianity, depending on what one means by a sect, but in no defensible sense can it be argued plausibly that evangelicals are sectarian but Mormonism is not. If you wish to discuss this issue in a separate thread I'm open to hearing a reasoned defense of this pejorative characterization of all orthodox Christians in contrast to the LDS Church, but good luck trying to mount such a defense.

It is the penchant of nearly all unorthodox brands of Christianity to blame the parts of orthodox Christianity they don't like on Hellenistic influence. The problem is that the unorthodox cannot seem to agree on what the baneful aspects of orthodox theology are. Jehovah's Witnesses claim that trinitarians worship a triad of gods more or less directly lifted out of pagan Greek religion, though in their zeal to put us on the pagan side of the divide they appeal to Mesopotamian, Canaanite, Egyptian, Norse, and even east Asian triads of deities, which of course makes their argument into historical nonsense. Yet in the orthodox-Mormon debate it is the Mormons who advocate a form of tritheism, not the orthodox. Meanwhile, you have Hugh Nibley finding antecedents for Mormon theology in several of the same places the Jehovah's Witnesses find trinitarianism, except that Nibley actually thought these antecedents were good evidence for the antiquity and therefore the authenticity of Joseph Smith's "restored" theology.

All sorts of beliefs that you share with orthodox Christians have been dismissed by others as supposedly originating from foreign influences. For example, the belief in angels and demons supposedly came from Persia (Zoroastrianism is commonly mentioned in particular). Mormons celebrate Christmas, which Jehovah's Witnesses claim was instituted by apostate Christendom as a kind of baptized form of Mithraism or some similar pagan celebration. The belief that the spirit can exist as a personal entity apart from the physical body is an idea that many people claim derived from Hellenistic thought rather than from the Bible. Oddly enough, you allude to this very criticism when you talk about the mind/body dualism as Hellenistic. Loran, I have news for you: Mormon theology espouses a particularly strong form of anthropological dualism. Human beings not only have both a body and a spirit in Mormon doctrine, they have two bodies, one of flesh and bones and another of spirit.

Arguments of this type all fall into the general category of the genetic fallacy. By showing that a particular idea might have originated, or been influenced by, some specific source, the arguer concludes that the idea is false. But the pagan Greeks had some good ideas. Teenagers may not opt out of studying geometry on the grounds that it was originated by pagan Greek thinkers as part of their religious worldview (even though that is actually true!). The fact that the kalam cosmological argument was first developed by Muslim philosophers does not make it a bad argument.

There is a really interesting irony here. The patristic doctrine of deification was heavily indebted for its formulation to Platonism. Clement of Alexandria's definition of deification as "assimilation to God as far as possible" (Paedagogus 1.6, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 2:215) comes straight out of Plato, for whom eudaimonia meant "likeness to God so far as possible" (Theaetetus 176b; see also Republic 613a). This definition of theosis or deification became commonplace in Eastern Christian theosis teachings. Does that mean that the doctrine of theosis is a pagan Greek corruption of Christianity? Maybe, but that conclusion does not follow merely because the doctrine was formulated using Greek categories and concepts.

I find it interesting that you would claim that the orthodox doctrine of God is foreign to the Scriptures. I thought that in your view a doctrine may be foreign to the Scriptures and yet still be true. We need to try to have a level playing field here, Loran. If you're going to appeal to Scripture as a standard, then I must be allowed to do so as well.

All this, and I have only responded to your opening paragraph. But these foundational matters must be hashed out clearly if we are to communicate fruitfully with one another.

More later as I have time.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Loran Blood]

I'd like to continue this, but I need time to think about what you just said (and I suggest you do too--I think you may have said something very deep here.)

I hope so. I like deep.

[Loran Blood]

That the Bible teaches a doctrine that one might choose to call "deification" is clear enough to me. That this term adequately or accurately expresses what the Bible teaches is quite another matter. That the redeemed will become like God in some very significant and wonderful ways is definitely taught. That they will become Gods in the sense of beings of the same ontological attributes and exercising a similar role in their own worlds is not taught in the Bible anywhere.

I wonder than, just at the outset, if you could give us your interpretation of the following verses of NT scripture:

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is (1 John :2).

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne (Revelation 3:21).

He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son (Revelation 21:7).

I'd respectfully request that you drop the "sectarian" pejorative henceforth in our discussions. I consider it offensive in much the same way as you probably view the term "cultic" with regard to your own religion.

I will have to respectfully decline that request for what I think is the very good reason that the use of the term "sectarian" is perfectly justifiable (evengelical Protestantism is a branch or derivitive of the older traditional Protestant demonimations all of which were composed of "sects," or schools of Protestant Christianity, while modern evangelicalism encompasses a vast variety sects and independent organizations) term to use with regard ot both Protestant and the old world "orthodox" Christian churches. The term "cult," on the other hand, as used by "cult ministry" evangelicals has always been used as a covert negative psychological reference when used to describe the LDS and other religous systems with which they disagree doctrinally. The intellectual slight of hand here has always been a bit much, in my view.

There are two ways in which the LDS Church is, indeed, a "cult,' the first being that it is a system of worship and religous belief per se, and the second being that it is a minority religion in a society dominated by other sects having much more cultural influence. The other meaning of cult, which applies to groups such as the Manson family, verious New Age groups, the People's Temple, The Children of God, and movements like those formed around figures like Ram Dass, David Koresh, or Da Free John, is not applicable to the Church, but it is precisely this sublte psycholgical suggestion that counter-cult figures have encouraged, if not overtly, then in using the term "cult" in an undefined and unclear way (and groups such as Recovery From Mormonism, among others and various individuals, used the term in exaclty that way, in which one requires "deprogramming," therapy, and "recovery," as from addiction, once one has escaped from the Church's clutches. Much of this has been historically centered in evangelical Protestantism, Rob, and I just don't think thats deniable.

In India, just for one example, evangelical Protestantism is a cult, both because it is a relgion and because it is a clear minority religion. "Sect," as I use it, simply designates various differing and competing branches of Christianity, nothing more.

The term "sectarian" serves no plausible or defensible distinction between orthodox Christians and Mormons; in one sense one might say that we represent different sects of Christianity, depending on what one means by a sect, but in no defensible sense can it be argued plausibly that evangelicals are sectarian but Mormonism is not.

From within our theological perspective it does, and I realize you differ in this. From an LDS standpoint, all of the Christian world, irregardless of the many truths each sect or demonination may contain as aspects of its total teaching, are not orthodox at all from the perspective of primitive, 1st Century Christianity, the members of which would have extreme difficulty recognizing a large portion of the core teachings of Christianity any time after, at the latest, the early 3rd Century. As the restored gospel is understood to be both a pure restoration and continuance of the authorized, divinely appointed Church of Jesus Christ that was lost after the apostolic era, all Christian churchs, while they remain Christian and part of a larger body of Christian believers, are not "orthodox" in relation to the true gospel, of which there is only one.

While it is true there are no sects of "Mormonism" (all non-LDS cults or offshoots, while having historical connection to the Church, are not members, and not considered Latter day Saints at all. There is no "body of Mormonism" in church theology as with Protestantism,where one has a concept of a "body of Christ" comprising countless demoninations, fellowhips and ministries and in which there is no true church, only a true general religious worldview), this does apply to both old world orthodox and Protestant Christianity. It is not meant to be perjorative, just descriptive.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Rob Bowman]

Loran,

I comment at some length on Revelation 3:21 and deification in part 3 of my blog series on theosis at Parchment & Pen. My comments on Romans 8:17 in that blog article will also shed some light on Revelation 21:7. By "all things" in that verse is meant everything that God promised humanity they would receive from him; it does not mean that they will inherit all of God's attributes, powers, and privileges. Regarding 1 John 3:2, I comment on this verse in the final article in the Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide (Part Two of my response to GP 47). You might want to read that article before trying to argue that my position is unbiblical.

You mentioned intellectual sleight of hand in your defense of calling evangelicals "sectarian," and sleight of hand is what you do when you try to rationalize the claim that there are no Mormon sects. Having defined a sect as an offshoot of an older religious body, as you did, you then inconsistently refuse to acknowledge that there are numerous Mormon or LDS sects that were offshoots of the original LDS body. The fact that you do not consider members of those offshoots "Latter-day Saints" is supremely ironic. Orthodox Christians are supposedly intolerant haters if they deny that Mormonism is Christian, but it's somehow okay for members of the LDS Church to say that polygamous Mormons are not Latter-day Saints.

[KevinG]

We recognize the offshoots of the church organized by Joseph Smith are both Christian and Mormon. They can even refer to themselves as Latter-day Saints if they want for we are in the latter-days and they are professing to be members of Gods church (Saints).

What we deny them is identifying themselves as the same denomination as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That would be like allowing the Baptists to call themselves Methodists.

Hope that clears it up for you.

Edited February 9, 2012 by DaddyG

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

We recognize the offshoots of the church organized by Joseph Smith are both Christian and Mormon. They can even refer to themselves as Latter-day Saints if they want for we are in the latter-days and they are professing to be members of Gods church (Saints).

What we deny them is identifying themselves as the same denomination as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That would be like allowing the Baptists to call themselves Methodists.

Hope that clears it up for you.

I'm not the one who needs this cleared up. Loran is the one who said that LDS offshoots are "not considered Latter-day Saints at all."

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

I'm not the one who needs this cleared up. Loran is the one who said that LDS offshoots are "not considered Latter-day Saints at all."

Hopefully Loran will refrain from using the colloquial "Latter-day Saints" to mean the subset "members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - headquartered in Salt Lake City Utah" in order not to confuse you further.

Edited February 9, 2012 by DaddyG

[sethpayne]

While it is true there are no sects of "Mormonism" (all non-LDS cults or offshoots, while having historical connection to the Church, are not members, and not considered Latter day Saints at all.

I think this very much has to do with context. If a conversation is centered on the CoJCLDS then calling a Bickertonite a Latter-day Saint -- without qualification that he/she is a member of another Mormon sect -- it would be misleading. However, in the broad context I have seen the term applied to several offshoots in what, I felt at least, was proper context.

I hate the whole argument about "are Mormons Christian?" blah blah blah...... It's an argument with no possible resolution. I'd hate to see us try and strip from these indviduals the right to name themselves, just as we ask other followers of Christ to respect our right to call ourselves Christian.

[Loran Blood]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

I'm not the one who needs this cleared up. Loran is the one who said that LDS offshoots are "not considered Latter-day Saints at all."

Its really quite simple, Rob. All of the sects (denominations) of Prostestantism, up to and including individual ministries of individual ministers, are also, at the same time, all considered to be legitimate parts of the Protestant Christian world, and all a part of a larger "body of Christ" identified with Protestant theology.

The historic offshoots of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, while legitimatle "offshoots," are not considered denominations of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. Unlike Protestantism, their historic connection, as a matter of being derivitive, allows them no status as a "sect" of the original church. Non-members are non-members, period. Those who apostatize from the church and who's names are removed, or are excommunicated, are as they had never been members at all. The severance is total.

There is no general body of LDS sects as there is a body of historically and theologically connected Protestent rhizomes within Protestantism. In other words, the various LDS offshoots are considered as wholly and utterly outside the Church and outside the authorized Kingdom of God.

[Loran Blood]

I think this very much has to do with context. If a conversation is centered on the CoJCLDS then calling a Bickertonite a Latter-day Saint -- without qualification that he/she is a member of another Mormon sect -- it would be misleading. However, in the broad context I have seen the term applied to several offshoots in what, I felt at least, was proper context.

I hate the whole argument about "are Mormons Christian?" blah blah blah...... It's an argument with no possible resolution. I'd hate to see us try and strip from these indviduals the right to name themselves, just as we ask other followers of Christ to respect our right to call ourselves Christian.

They can name themselves as they please, but when they call themselves "Mormons," a problem arises because (and as really obscure as most of these folks are) this term is associated with the Salt Lake church, and its important to understand that the alterations in revealed doctrine, lack of priethood authority, and changes or abandonment of certain ordinances, makes the difference between these "Mormon" sects and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints absolute. This is hardly the case within Protestantism.

Rob and other members of the evangelical anti-cult movement have to quibble over this point because of the fact that the very real phemonena of the vast proliferation sects, denominations, cults (PTL Club? Joel Osteen? Walter Martin?) is, itself, deeply problamatic for historic Christianity, as the Bible authorizes or supports no such proliferation of competing, theologically diverse branches within the church Jesus Christ inagurated and, indeed, prohibits anything like it.

[Rob Bowman]

Loran,

You wrote:

They can name themselves as they please, but when they call themselves "Mormons," a problem arises because (and as really obscure as most of these folks are) this term is associated with the Salt Lake church, and its important to understand that the alterations in revealed doctrine, lack of priethood authority, and changes or abandonment of certain ordinances, makes the difference between these "Mormon" sects and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints absolute. This is hardly the case within Protestantism.

You're correct, that is hardly the case within Protestantism. That's why Protestants of different denominations can all be Protestants and can all recognize one another as Christians, as Protestants, and as evangelicals. But did someone suggest otherwise? The issue is the difference between Mormonism and traditional Christianity as found not only in Protestantism but also Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. To use your own wording, it is important to understand that the LDS Church's alterations in revealed doctrine, claims to exclusive priesthood authority, and changes in certain ordinances, make the difference between the Mormon religion and the historic church of Jesus Christ absolute.

You wrote:

Rob and other members of the evangelical anti-cult movement have to quibble over this point because of the fact that the very real phemonena of the vast proliferation sects, denominations, cults (PTL Club? Joel Osteen? Walter Martin?) is, itself, deeply problamatic for historic Christianity, as the Bible authorizes or supports no such proliferation of competing, theologically diverse branches within the church Jesus Christ inagurated and, indeed, prohibits anything like it.

Walter Martin? What sect, denomination, or cult do you claim he started? Be serious.

The problem of competing, theologically diverse branches within the church is not solved by adding one more, nor by breaking off the tree altogether and proclaiming yourself the only true church.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[KevinG]

For protestants to call each other Christian unquestioningly requres them to overlook significant theological differences that are insome cases much larger than the differences between Mormons and Evangelicals you claim disqualify Mormons from being truly Christian.

The significant distinction as you pointed out so respecfully is the disagreement over the need for continuation (Orthodox and Catholocism) reformation (Protestantism) vs. restoration (Mormonism).

Edited February 9, 2012 by DaddyG

[Loran Blood]

For protestants to call each other Christian unquestioningly requres them to overlook significant theological differences that are insome cases much larger than the differences between Mormons and Evangelicals you claim disqualify Mormons from being truly Christian.

The significant distinction as you pointed out so respecfully is the disagreement over the need for continuation (Orthodox and Catholocism) reformation (Protestantism) vs. restoration (Mormonism).

Indeed. Regarding the ongoing discussion of the Trinity, the difference of theological interpretation relative to Christology, including the Modal/Trinitarian split, whether Jesus was created or coeteral with the Father, whether he was subordinate to or equal with the Father, and some other theological wrangles, eventuated in a complete split into Western and Eastern Christianity, which means, in point of fact, two completely different schools of Christianity that, although they do, of course, share some similar core themes and ideas, also deviate substantially in others, and deviate substantially enough that they do not go to church in the same building together or even share the same name (the Roman and Greek "orthodox" churches, both using the term "orthodox," in no uncertain terms, make it clear that they do not see eye to eye on central concepts).

Edited February 9, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

You're correct, that is hardly the case within Protestantism. That's why Protestants of different denominations can all be

Protestants and can all recognize one another as Christians, as Protestants, and as evangelicals. But did someone suggest otherwise? The issue is the difference between Mormonism and traditional Christianity as found not only in Protestantism but also Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. To use your own wording, it is important to understand that the LDS Church's alterations in revealed doctrine, claims to exclusive priesthood authority, and changes in certain ordinances, make the difference between the Mormon religion and the historic church of Jesus Christ absolute.

You have pointed out a major division between us. For LDS, all other Christians, no matter the false teachings that are a part of thier belief systems, are all a part of the Christian world with Mormons. For evangelicals, Mormons are a non-Christian cult wholly outside the Christian fold, regardless of the centrality of Christ in their teaching and worship and his place as Lord and Savior. Further, for evangelicals, Mormons, because of their theological concepts, are going to Hell for all eternity for so believing, again, irrespective of their faith in Jesus Christ and Christian conduct. For LDS, only the wicked enter Hell, not peiple mistaken in their beliefs. Evangelicals who live to the extent of the light and knowedge they have according to the commandments of Christ, but who do not not accept the fulness of the gospel, will come forth in a Terrestrial resurrection as glorified beings of vast potential.

A massive difference, in my view.

Walter Martin? What sect, denomination, or cult do you claim he started? Be serious.

I think a good argument can be made that Walter Martin, and others like him, are cult leaders within tiny, ideosyncratic personal minsitries with highly specific aims and focus (counter-cult, for example) and hold to very ideosyncratic theological ideas (Martin's "reformed" theology). Could it be denied that people like Ernest Angley, Jim Baker, Oral Roberts, Robert Tilton, Benny Hinn, and Jack Van Impe are, in a sense, cultic sub-theological and cultural elements within evangelical Protestantism, or that certain types of ministries, such as the megachurch phenomena, involve a kind of cult of religous celebrity around certain personalities (Joel Osteen)?

The problem of competing, theologically diverse branches within the church is not solved by adding one more, nor by breaking off the tree altogether and proclaiming yourself the only true church.

The text in boldface would, indeed, solve the problem, at least if that church was divinely authorized by Jesus Christ.

[wenglund]

Loran,

I think Rob may have a point regarding being called a "sectarian" in these discussions. Were he, in his Study Guide or in his monologues here, to have been advocating and prostetyzing specifically for his sect, then it may be appropriate to consider him, in this context, to be sectarian. Rather, he is not arguing for his sect, but against our faith. So, rather than referring to him as sectarian, the more appropriate designation would be anti-Mormon.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[altersteve]

I disagree. I wouldn't say Rob is an "anti-Mormon," as he clearly doesn't have any extreme opposition to LDS people or culture, he's always respectful in his dialogue with Latter-day Saints as far as I've seen, and he does not seem to be doing what he does with any malicious intent. From my understanding, he's doing it because he sees Mormonism as a distortion of true Christianity, so in his eyes, by challenging Mormonism, he is in a way arguing for his own beliefs. In some ways, I can respect that.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

I think Rob may have a point regarding being called a "sectarian" in these discussions. Were he, in his Study Guide or in his monologues here, to have been advocating and prostetyzing specifically for his sect, then it may be appropriate to consider him, in this context, to be sectarian. Rather, he is not arguing for his sect, but against our faith. So, rather than referring to him as sectarian, the more appropriate designation would be anti-Mormon.

I am neither advocating for a particular sect nor merely arguing against your "faith." Rather, I am advocating for "the faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) and against your "sect'" that opposes that faith, and I could care less which of the many orthodox denominations or churches with which one might unite after coming to accept that faith.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

I would be remiss if I did not express appreciation for you saying what you did here. You get it. That you understand my intentions even while vigorously disagreeing with my position is all the more to be appreciated.

I disagree. I wouldn't say Rob is an "anti-Mormon," as he clearly doesn't have any extreme opposition to LDS people or culture, he's always respectful in his dialogue with Latter-day Saints as far as I've seen, and he does not seem to be doing what he does with any malicious intent. From my understanding, he's doing it because he sees Mormonism as a distortion of true Christianity, so in his eyes, by challenging Mormonism, he is in a way arguing for his own beliefs. In some ways, I can respect that.

[wenglund]

I disagree. I wouldn't say Rob is an "anti-Mormon," as he clearly doesn't have any extreme opposition to LDS people or culture, he's always respectful in his dialogue with Latter-day Saints as far as I've seen, and he does not seem to be doing what he does with any malicious intent. From my understanding, he's doing it because he sees Mormonism as a distortion of true Christianity, so in his eyes, by challenging Mormonism, he is in a way arguing for his own beliefs. In some ways, I can respect that.

To me, the criteria for determining whether someone is anti-Mormon or not, isn't their lack of civility or extremisms, but rather whether their published works and their evident agenda is directly and explicitly against our LDS faith.

Besides, my comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek (as witnessed by the smiley face). I have yet to refer to Rob as anti-Mormon, not because I don't view him as such (I do), but because doing so tends to be ineffectual in interactions with him here. It gives him unwarranted excuse to deflectively complain and anoint himself with victim status--a tactic he employes to maximum advantage except with those of us who can see through its lameness.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 9, 2012 by wenglund