Because people keep posting stupid ideas that the Bible doesn't teach that God is the Father of all spirits, and therefore all spirits are the Children of God, here is an extensive and irrefutable presentation on the topic.
After talking to literally dozens of anti-Mormons who raise this issue, 100% admit they are wrong when they hear these scriptures:
Acts 17:27-29 27 [God] isn't far from any of us, 28 and he gives us the power to live, to move, and to be who we are. “We are his children,” just as some of your poets have said. 29 Since we are God's children..., "
Hard to imagine what an alternate meaning is there, what with Paul speaking to unconverted pagans and affirming "We are God's children".
But it is reinforced by this simple statement in Hebrews 12:9 "Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live?"(NASB)
Let's see: Paul says we are all the children of God. The word he uses in Greek is "genos", which most translations have as "offspring", which further emphasizes a member of and descending from God's family. In fact, the very literal NASB translates Rev 22:16 as Jesus stating of himself: "I am the root and the descendant [Gk. genos] of David..." You have to be careful of not definition shopping, but this is 100% justifiable and contextually correct.
Some critics point out that John 1:12 says that believers are given the right to "become children of god", and so if they will "become" then logically they can't already be one. I would of course agree. But it shows an ignorance of the words being used, and their differences.
The "children" of John 1:12 are the Greek word "tekna". The word implies a dependency to your parents or, for example, a teacher or leader. So to become a "tekna of God", one becomes fully dependent upon him and his spirit in response to exercising faith. Thus the idea of "sons of God" in the Old and New Testaments is those children are heirs of God and divine, and more fully grown. The 'genos' of Acts 17:29 has no implication of ongoing dependency. It is describing the paternity of people alone. I used to joke in my Greek classes in translation exercises that "tekna" were 'lads', not infants, but not adult children. Genos, on the other hand, is just about who you are related to.
In summary, Paul explicitly teaches all people are the children of God, he being the father of their spirits both before and after their conversion to Christ. The only way one can deny that is to ignore the actual words of the Bible.
Saturday, December 22, 2018
Thursday, September 29, 2016
It's Official: I am Arrogant and Conceited. Just Ask Lee Baker.
In 2015 I met Lee Baker at Manti, an ex-Mormon whose main claim to fame is he touts that he was once an LDS bishop. He has a radio show which introduces him as Bishop Lee Baker.
I will post the video on YouTube of my interaction in Manti with him. In 2016 I called into his show several times to discuss several topics, and reached the conclusion that Mr. Baker's driving motive is completely polemical and has no interest in truth claims. I based it the fact that after one call, he edited the call to emphasize certain words I spoke as if they proved his point, something I found to be bad form. I wrote him a note telling him that, and told him I would cease interacting with him, and we ceased talking and writing to each other.
So you can imagine my surprise that I got a small booklet in the mail a week ago with a page dedicated to me and another LDS scholar, stating:
I actually responded in detail to Mr. Baker in this very blog nearly a year ago, on Nov. 24, 2015, having previously called into his show on Nov 22, 2015 and tried to engage him on the subject, to which he responded by cutting off my call. Listen between 32 minutes and 36 minutes on the call record. BTW, interestingly he has removed the episode from his archive, and you now have to go to Blog Talk Radio archive to get the episode. He mailed me something, which I probably have if I look hard enough, and then he and I had an email exchange, when on April 28, 2016 I again not only gave him the link to the Joseph Smith Paper's original , I gave him the actual copy of the document showing Joseph Smith's Inspired Translation original dictation, and pointed out that I felt his teachings in JST Genesis 17 amounted to the Jewish equivalent of a Midrash, or an extended explanation of the underlying meaning of a text. Since Joseph notes that the circumcision on the 8th day was symbolic of accountability for sins beginning at 8 years, he definitely was not saying not to circumcise, since it is specifically stated to circumcise in verse 17 at the age of eight days.
A colleague of mine, Robert Boylan at FairMormon, also addressed this very issue in August 26, 2016 in his Blog, Scriptural Mormonism also responds in detail.
I am not a doctor, but I have had a lot of experience dealing with the elderly, and I studied Gerontology when I was in college and got a minor in it from BYU. My parents ran senior living foster homes, which included folks with early stage dementia. I don't write this to be insulting, but to be sympathetic, as I believe Mr. Baker exhibits symptoms of some form of early stage dementia. He was a man who worked in the intelligence field as an analyst professionally, and now he not only seems unable to connect basic concepts together, he makes assertions about issues which are demonstrably false, such as this where I have not only devoted blog space to his topic, but I have corresponded with him and been on his radio show. His confrontational nature also is consistent with certain types of dementia, and the alienation of his relationships to his close family members, children and grandchildren, because he apparently refuses to refrain from "preaching the truth" to them, even after they have heard it from him many times and have asked him for the sake of their relationships to declare a truce, is sad. I could be all wrong, and I hope I am. In any case, I pray for Mr. Baker. Insofar as his material pertains to me, he is truly either demented, blessed with the world's worst memory or he is a documented liar. None of those choices speak well of him. As is typical of anti-Mormons, which Mr. Baker is, he camps on verse 11 and doesn't bother to read all the way to verse 17, which is all part of the same context. In my opinion, that is not honest. But then again, he is the guy who swore and promised he would never return to Manti if I could show him from the Bible where God lied or caused someone to lied intentionally, and after doing so, he failed to keep his word. So really, what can one expect from someone like that?
I will post the video on YouTube of my interaction in Manti with him. In 2016 I called into his show several times to discuss several topics, and reached the conclusion that Mr. Baker's driving motive is completely polemical and has no interest in truth claims. I based it the fact that after one call, he edited the call to emphasize certain words I spoke as if they proved his point, something I found to be bad form. I wrote him a note telling him that, and told him I would cease interacting with him, and we ceased talking and writing to each other.
So you can imagine my surprise that I got a small booklet in the mail a week ago with a page dedicated to me and another LDS scholar, stating:
Well, it's all true. Except like almost none of it is accurate. I haven't lived in South Jordan for nearly three years, and he knows it since he has mailed materials to my home in Highland; I am not "a" or "the" Church Historian, and I am certainly not an official representative of FAIRMormon.org. I do have a Utah driver's license, if that makes me an official of the state of Utah, however.Dedication
This book is dedicated to the several Mormon Leaders, Scholars and Teachers listed below, who have arrogantly refused to explain or even provide a single comment specific to the Joseph Smith Jr. translation of the Book of Gensis, Chapter 17.Their rejection to do so has served as the primary motivation for this uniquely focused study of the personal motives, biblical skills and questionable character of Joseph Smith Jr. and the "translation" Smith wrote between 1830-1833, which was in fact an irrelevant and self-aggrandizing version of The Holy Bible, King James Version.______________________In Special Acknowledgment of the Arrogance and Conceit of:Mr. David E. Premont of Olney, MarylandofThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day SaintsChurch Education System - Baltimore Seminary and Institute CoordinatorBaltimore, Columbia, Seneca Maryland and Wilmington Delaware StakesMr. Robert B. Vukich of South Jordan, UTChurch Historian, Instructor and ScholarofThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day SaintsFoundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIRMormon.org)
I actually responded in detail to Mr. Baker in this very blog nearly a year ago, on Nov. 24, 2015, having previously called into his show on Nov 22, 2015 and tried to engage him on the subject, to which he responded by cutting off my call. Listen between 32 minutes and 36 minutes on the call record. BTW, interestingly he has removed the episode from his archive, and you now have to go to Blog Talk Radio archive to get the episode. He mailed me something, which I probably have if I look hard enough, and then he and I had an email exchange, when on April 28, 2016 I again not only gave him the link to the Joseph Smith Paper's original , I gave him the actual copy of the document showing Joseph Smith's Inspired Translation original dictation, and pointed out that I felt his teachings in JST Genesis 17 amounted to the Jewish equivalent of a Midrash, or an extended explanation of the underlying meaning of a text. Since Joseph notes that the circumcision on the 8th day was symbolic of accountability for sins beginning at 8 years, he definitely was not saying not to circumcise, since it is specifically stated to circumcise in verse 17 at the age of eight days.
A colleague of mine, Robert Boylan at FairMormon, also addressed this very issue in August 26, 2016 in his Blog, Scriptural Mormonism also responds in detail.
I am not a doctor, but I have had a lot of experience dealing with the elderly, and I studied Gerontology when I was in college and got a minor in it from BYU. My parents ran senior living foster homes, which included folks with early stage dementia. I don't write this to be insulting, but to be sympathetic, as I believe Mr. Baker exhibits symptoms of some form of early stage dementia. He was a man who worked in the intelligence field as an analyst professionally, and now he not only seems unable to connect basic concepts together, he makes assertions about issues which are demonstrably false, such as this where I have not only devoted blog space to his topic, but I have corresponded with him and been on his radio show. His confrontational nature also is consistent with certain types of dementia, and the alienation of his relationships to his close family members, children and grandchildren, because he apparently refuses to refrain from "preaching the truth" to them, even after they have heard it from him many times and have asked him for the sake of their relationships to declare a truce, is sad. I could be all wrong, and I hope I am. In any case, I pray for Mr. Baker. Insofar as his material pertains to me, he is truly either demented, blessed with the world's worst memory or he is a documented liar. None of those choices speak well of him. As is typical of anti-Mormons, which Mr. Baker is, he camps on verse 11 and doesn't bother to read all the way to verse 17, which is all part of the same context. In my opinion, that is not honest. But then again, he is the guy who swore and promised he would never return to Manti if I could show him from the Bible where God lied or caused someone to lied intentionally, and after doing so, he failed to keep his word. So really, what can one expect from someone like that?
Saturday, April 09, 2016
Why Do They Lie? Lee Baker's Radio Deception
I called into an anti-Mormon radio program in Salt Lake today (April 9, 2016) which was discussing the decline of LDS membership, and specifically stating "Why Millions of Mormons are leaving the Church". So I did some research, and then called to point out that according to a 2015 PEW article on religious affiliation in the USA, between 2007 and 2014 the LDS decline was at most 20,000 people, an amount the report characterized as negligible by designating it with a "-". In the same article they showed Evangelical adherents had declined by .8% of the USA population, or some 3-million people, and Protestantism in general was down by 7.8% of its membership.
So I called in, pointed out the real numbers, and then asked why they were not asking the same questions about non-LDS Christian denominations, what people were finding out that was driving people to leave those denominations. The answer of course is a general religious malaise in the world, and trying to pin it on dirty secrets coming out on the Internet about Mormonism begs the question about the more substantial declines in other groups.
As is typical, Lee Baker can't stay focused on a subject when it starts going badly, so he jumped to the topic of polygamy, and why Joseph Smith did not tell Emma about all of his plural wives. He and his wife tried to represent that the Church essay on polygamy in Kirtland and Nauvou stated Emma only knew about 4 of his plural wives. That is a misrepresentation. She attended four, and she probably knew about more, but she likely did not know about all of them.
I wanted to address the subject of Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives, the practice of polyandry. They have repeatedly attacked Joseph for marrying other men's wives, implying he had sex with them for personal gratification. I pointed out the evidence shows Joseph married about 14 women married to other men; they usually informed their first husbands, who also sometimes attended; there is no evidence of any sexual relations with any of them, but these were the category of dynastic marriages, meaning for eternity to seal families together.
At this point Lee Baker says I am disagreeing with the Church essay, which states in footnote 30 (which he repeated several times) that:
I have done enough research to know a selective quote out of context when I hear it. I knew the record does not support a physical relationship between Joseph and the Polyandrous wives, so I pushed back saying the statement is not about Joseph Smith's relationship, even though I did not have the essay in front of me at the time. I have read it before, and I would have remembered such a statement.
Well, before I could respond much further they cut me off. I looked up the essay to get the context of the quote. Here it is, I will highlight the part he must have accidentally left off:
I try to let everyone prove themselves honest or a liar. Listen to the last 15 minutes of their broadcast, and judge for yourselves. The radio program should be posted by tomorrow night or Monday for sure. Let me know what you think.
Blessings.
So I called in, pointed out the real numbers, and then asked why they were not asking the same questions about non-LDS Christian denominations, what people were finding out that was driving people to leave those denominations. The answer of course is a general religious malaise in the world, and trying to pin it on dirty secrets coming out on the Internet about Mormonism begs the question about the more substantial declines in other groups.
As is typical, Lee Baker can't stay focused on a subject when it starts going badly, so he jumped to the topic of polygamy, and why Joseph Smith did not tell Emma about all of his plural wives. He and his wife tried to represent that the Church essay on polygamy in Kirtland and Nauvou stated Emma only knew about 4 of his plural wives. That is a misrepresentation. She attended four, and she probably knew about more, but she likely did not know about all of them.
I wanted to address the subject of Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives, the practice of polyandry. They have repeatedly attacked Joseph for marrying other men's wives, implying he had sex with them for personal gratification. I pointed out the evidence shows Joseph married about 14 women married to other men; they usually informed their first husbands, who also sometimes attended; there is no evidence of any sexual relations with any of them, but these were the category of dynastic marriages, meaning for eternity to seal families together.
At this point Lee Baker says I am disagreeing with the Church essay, which states in footnote 30 (which he repeated several times) that:
Polyandry, the marriage of one woman to more than one man, typically involves shared financial, residential, and sexual resources, and children are often raised communally.He then argued this was clearly stating Joseph had sex with these 14 polyandrous wives based on this footnote.
I have done enough research to know a selective quote out of context when I hear it. I knew the record does not support a physical relationship between Joseph and the Polyandrous wives, so I pushed back saying the statement is not about Joseph Smith's relationship, even though I did not have the essay in front of me at the time. I have read it before, and I would have remembered such a statement.
Well, before I could respond much further they cut me off. I looked up the essay to get the context of the quote. Here it is, I will highlight the part he must have accidentally left off:
Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 1:421–37. Polyandry, the marriage of one woman to more than one man, typically involves shared financial, residential, and sexual resources, and children are often raised communally. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith’s sealings functioned in this way, and much evidence works against that view.I can only imagine how one can justify in one's mind such creative editing, and doing it essentially in a face to face conversation. It is so common among so many anti-Mormons to distort the truth, I don't know what they think. But it reminds me of the remark from Elder Turley I cited at the beginning of the call: We don't worry about people studying LDS history, we worry they won't study it enough.
I try to let everyone prove themselves honest or a liar. Listen to the last 15 minutes of their broadcast, and judge for yourselves. The radio program should be posted by tomorrow night or Monday for sure. Let me know what you think.
Blessings.
Saturday, January 30, 2016
LDS vs Other Views on Predestination/Election
I listen to a lot of podcasts by Calvinists of various flavors, some Arminians and some "Traditionalists". For the sake of brevity of explanations, Calvinists, named for 16th Century Reformer John Calvin, hold that God only loves some people enough to save them, but he is the source of all actions and he dictates the Will of all men to them. They are typically known by the acrostic TULIP, or the 5-points of Calvinism. Frankly, it is a monsterous philosophical system, which has a god nothing like Jesus of the Bible, and can find no historical support earlier than Augustine of Hippo in the 5th Century.
Arminians hold many views similar to Calvinists in many areas, but they believe Man does have relative free will. This results in a situation of God looking down the corridors of time to see who will chose to accept the Gospel message, and so he then "Elects" them. This drives Calvinists crazy, because they think if anyone has free will, there is a chance they could frustrate the plan of God, and prevent his purposes. This is also called Semi-Pelagianism, after the 4th Century monk, Pelagius. Pelagius is accused of believing humans were actually completely responsible for accepting the Gospel, and that humans once doing so could live a perfect life without the need of God's further grace. At least he is accused of that. Since he was considered heretical, most of his works were destroyed, so we mostly have information from his critics. What writings of his survive seem to be somewhat different, and historically he doesn't seem to be viewed in quite this light.
Lastly, there is the traditional Baptist view, wherein man is free to choose, but after he chooses it is impossible to lose your salvation. God knows who will join accept the Gospel, but he puts the message out to everyone, and everyone actually has a chance of accepting it.
Candidly, it is beyond me how these three views can say the difference between a Calvinist God, who is the one who motivates and decrees the rape of children, ethnic cleansing the the unmerited damnation of his children for no reason other than his own good "pleasure" to give himself "Glory"; and the traditional view's God who actually is not responsible for evil actions, but actually wants all of his children saved; how is it these two views are viewed as "minor" differences within their view of the Christian faith?
The more I research these views, the sicker I find Calvinism to be, and the more hypocritical I find the non-Calvinists for not calling this monster philosophy for the evil it is.
Here are some actual quotes from leading Calvinists, but I will cite a few. I must thank the website I got these from for putting so many illustrations in a single place:
Can it be any more clear!! But this is not the worst.
Arminians hold many views similar to Calvinists in many areas, but they believe Man does have relative free will. This results in a situation of God looking down the corridors of time to see who will chose to accept the Gospel message, and so he then "Elects" them. This drives Calvinists crazy, because they think if anyone has free will, there is a chance they could frustrate the plan of God, and prevent his purposes. This is also called Semi-Pelagianism, after the 4th Century monk, Pelagius. Pelagius is accused of believing humans were actually completely responsible for accepting the Gospel, and that humans once doing so could live a perfect life without the need of God's further grace. At least he is accused of that. Since he was considered heretical, most of his works were destroyed, so we mostly have information from his critics. What writings of his survive seem to be somewhat different, and historically he doesn't seem to be viewed in quite this light.
Lastly, there is the traditional Baptist view, wherein man is free to choose, but after he chooses it is impossible to lose your salvation. God knows who will join accept the Gospel, but he puts the message out to everyone, and everyone actually has a chance of accepting it.
Candidly, it is beyond me how these three views can say the difference between a Calvinist God, who is the one who motivates and decrees the rape of children, ethnic cleansing the the unmerited damnation of his children for no reason other than his own good "pleasure" to give himself "Glory"; and the traditional view's God who actually is not responsible for evil actions, but actually wants all of his children saved; how is it these two views are viewed as "minor" differences within their view of the Christian faith?
The more I research these views, the sicker I find Calvinism to be, and the more hypocritical I find the non-Calvinists for not calling this monster philosophy for the evil it is.
Here are some actual quotes from leading Calvinists, but I will cite a few. I must thank the website I got these from for putting so many illustrations in a single place:
John Calvin:
Hence we maintain that, by his providence, not heaven and earth and inanimate creatures only, but also the counsels and wills of men are so governed as to move exactly in the course which he has destined.[1][The question must be asked—how are men held responsible for sinful choices that flow out of wills that are “governed as to move exactly in the course which God has destined?”]
Men do nothing save at the secret instigation of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on anything but what he has previously decreed with himself, and brings to pass by his secret direction.[2][In Calvinism God is the logical origin and thus author of every sinful thought or choice men make. How else to explain Calvinism’s teaching that all our decreed decisions and deliberations are initiated by the “secret instigation of God” that he infallibly “brings to pass by his secret direction?”]
The hand of God rules the interior affections no less than it superintends external actions; nor would God have effected by the hand of man what he decreed, unless he worked in their hearts to make them will before they acted.[3][Calvinists are well-known for redefining free-will as being “free to act in accordance with our strongest desires.” However what they leave out is the pivotal point that God has also causally predetermined which desires act upon our wills. Here Calvin admits that for God to achieve a predestined, external action in a person, he must effectively “work in their hearts to make them will before they act.”]
The will of God is the chief and principal cause of all things.[4]
James White:
Calvinist theologian James White, in a debate with Hank Hannegraaf and George Bryson, was asked, “When a child is raped, is God responsible and did He decree that rape?” To which Mr. White replied… “Yes, because if not then it’s meaningless and purposeless and though God knew it was going to happen he created it without a purpose… and God is responsible for the creation of despair… If He didn‟t [decree child rape] then that rape is an element of meaningless evil that has no purpose.”[11]
Can it be any more clear!! But this is not the worst.
John Piper:
“So when I say that everything that exists — including evil — is ordained by an infinitely holy and all-wise God to make the glory of Christ shine more brightly, I mean that, one way or the other, God sees to it that all things serve to glorify his Son.”[15]J.I. Packer:
God… orders and controls all things, human actions among them…He [also] holds every man responsible for the choices he makes and the courses of action he pursues… Man is a responsible moral agent, though he is also divinely controlled; man is divinely controlled, though he is also a responsible moral agent. To our finite minds, of course, the thing is inexplicable.[18]
R.C. Sproul Jr.
God wills all things that come to pass…God desired for man to fall into sin. I am not accusing God of sinning; I am suggesting that God created sin.”[19]
Mark Talbot and John Piper:
“God brings about all things in accordance with his will. It isn’t just that God manages to turn the evil aspects of our world to good for those that love him; it is rather that he himself brings about these evil aspects… This includes God’s having even brought about the Nazi’s brutality at Birkenau and Auschwitz as well as the terrible killings of Dennis Rader and even the sexual abuse of a young child.” [27]So Mormons believe in Free Will for people and we don't believe in the Trinity like non-LDS Christians, but apparently that is worse than believing God is somehow glorified in child rape, fatalistically decreeing all human evil, and sending his children into endless torment in hell for no personal cause WHATSOEVER. So I am not all that concerned about sucking up to people that tolerate such blasphemy or advocate it. If the non-Calvinists were actually true to their espoused convictions, they would call a spade a spade and
Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues (Rev 18:4).My next post will detail the text of Romans, especially chapters 8-9, which is where Calvinists supposedly take most of their support for God randomly deciding who should be saved or damned.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Ex-Bishop Telling Ex-Truth
There is a former LDS bishop and his wife who left the LDS Church about seven years ago who have a radio program dedicated to attacking Mormonism. I met them last summer in the streets of Manti, and his hubris and lack of knowledge about what he proclaimed himself to be an expert was striking to me. He dressed as a bishop, white shirt and tie, dark suit and an (un-bishop-like) name tag. We spoke for several minutes, and he had several strawmen arguments which focused on trying to create a false dilemma between Church leaders and a false "everybody knows" type of understanding.
He said Joseph Smith lied about his plural wives and John Taylor lied about LDS doctrine while serving in England. He asked if I would find it proper to remain in a Church which condoned lying? Because I didn't agree with the premise, And would not have time to define terms, I said "Maybe." He feigned shock, and asked how could that be? I told him him that since the Bible showed that God could lie about some things, I wasn't going to judge his servants. He then said a couple of times and in a couple of ways, "If you can show me where God lies to someone or causes someone to lie to them at His direction, I will leave Manti and never return." (BTW, I have it all on tape. We'll see if he keeps his word.)
Well, let me say that I don't have the entire Bible memorized, so it took me about 4-minutes or so to find the verse I had in mind. But I did remember. It is the story related by the prophet Michiah of God sitting in council with the hosts of heaven to find a way to punish Ahab. A spirit steps forward and says he would put a lying spirit in the mouths of the false prophets Ahab consulted, and kill Ahab. God agrees and then orders the lying spirit to deceive Ahab. And it did. Here is the critical passage: "Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee." (1 Kings 22:23)
I slapped him on the back, and said it had been nice seeing him, we would miss him. It was quite late, so I started to leave. He asked if I would want to come on his radio program, and I said he probably wouldn't let me talk, because that is his nature. But we exchanged emails, and he sent me an invite. I had no real interest in being on his program, but that may change.
So this past Saturday, November 21, 2015, as I was driving home from a grandchild's birthday party, I heard him and his wife on their radio program stating that their 10 phone lines are always open because Mormons cannot respond to their well documented attacks on the Church. I had called two weeks earlier to try and discuss Mormon concepts of the Bible's value, since the New Testament is my favorite of all books in the world, and he had diverted it to a discussion about the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis 17:11, where the JST describes circumcision as symbolic of children's accountability at the age of 8 years. Baker, the anti-Mormon's last name, had asserted the JST changed the date of circumcision from 8 days to 8-years. In fact, it does no such thing, as verse 17 clearly states male children are to be circumcised on the 8th day. Here is a link to the Joseph Smith Papers where a photo copy of the original JST manuscript can be seen, and you can read for yourself.
So I called in, got put on hold for 12 minutes or so as the guy blathered on about the Book of Abraham, and they put me on. I think it is about at the 32 minute mark in their online archive. They asked me my question, so I said I had called in two weeks earlier, and we had got cut off when he threw out the passage about circumcision being changed, and I asked if he had ever read the JST, not just the excerpts from the LDS scriptures. He danced around a little, but acknowledged he had the version printed by the Reorganized LDS Church. So I pointed out that verse 11 was not teaching circumcision on the 8 year old birthday, but in fact was talking about accountability, and that verse 17 clearly taught it was still to be done on the 8th day. I said this made his entire argument false and fall apart. They immediately went to commercial and dropped me (the last time they carried me through the commercial to continue discussing), and since they had no other callers, clearly this was just to get me off the air. He then got on air and said I was irrational and that it didn't matter what I had said, because the part about 8-days in verse 17 was an unchanged part of the Bible, and it was done years later.
Literally everything he said was wrong and false. I would have happily engaged on the Book of Abraham had they allowed me to stay, but I wasn't given the chance or asked. In any case, as I always say, if the truth about Mormonism is so bad, why do people need to lie about it. The fact he has before mentioned going to the Joseph Smith Papers website and that he has a copy of the RLDS JST means he is either stupid and has been duped, or he is a deceptive liar. He really has taken any third option off of the table by claiming to have read from these original documents.
I will try to circle back and get the link for their webcast where they put me on air both weeks. But you can always know that when someone's main credential is they were a Mormon for "x" number of years and held some high position, that they are probably lacking in the facts department. Reminds me of Shawn McCraney. I would love to have a conversation of substance. I started from a position that maybe he and his wife are just confused. I will let you decide if that holds up to the light of continuing Truth.
He said Joseph Smith lied about his plural wives and John Taylor lied about LDS doctrine while serving in England. He asked if I would find it proper to remain in a Church which condoned lying? Because I didn't agree with the premise, And would not have time to define terms, I said "Maybe." He feigned shock, and asked how could that be? I told him him that since the Bible showed that God could lie about some things, I wasn't going to judge his servants. He then said a couple of times and in a couple of ways, "If you can show me where God lies to someone or causes someone to lie to them at His direction, I will leave Manti and never return." (BTW, I have it all on tape. We'll see if he keeps his word.)
Well, let me say that I don't have the entire Bible memorized, so it took me about 4-minutes or so to find the verse I had in mind. But I did remember. It is the story related by the prophet Michiah of God sitting in council with the hosts of heaven to find a way to punish Ahab. A spirit steps forward and says he would put a lying spirit in the mouths of the false prophets Ahab consulted, and kill Ahab. God agrees and then orders the lying spirit to deceive Ahab. And it did. Here is the critical passage: "Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee." (1 Kings 22:23)
I slapped him on the back, and said it had been nice seeing him, we would miss him. It was quite late, so I started to leave. He asked if I would want to come on his radio program, and I said he probably wouldn't let me talk, because that is his nature. But we exchanged emails, and he sent me an invite. I had no real interest in being on his program, but that may change.
So this past Saturday, November 21, 2015, as I was driving home from a grandchild's birthday party, I heard him and his wife on their radio program stating that their 10 phone lines are always open because Mormons cannot respond to their well documented attacks on the Church. I had called two weeks earlier to try and discuss Mormon concepts of the Bible's value, since the New Testament is my favorite of all books in the world, and he had diverted it to a discussion about the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis 17:11, where the JST describes circumcision as symbolic of children's accountability at the age of 8 years. Baker, the anti-Mormon's last name, had asserted the JST changed the date of circumcision from 8 days to 8-years. In fact, it does no such thing, as verse 17 clearly states male children are to be circumcised on the 8th day. Here is a link to the Joseph Smith Papers where a photo copy of the original JST manuscript can be seen, and you can read for yourself.
So I called in, got put on hold for 12 minutes or so as the guy blathered on about the Book of Abraham, and they put me on. I think it is about at the 32 minute mark in their online archive. They asked me my question, so I said I had called in two weeks earlier, and we had got cut off when he threw out the passage about circumcision being changed, and I asked if he had ever read the JST, not just the excerpts from the LDS scriptures. He danced around a little, but acknowledged he had the version printed by the Reorganized LDS Church. So I pointed out that verse 11 was not teaching circumcision on the 8 year old birthday, but in fact was talking about accountability, and that verse 17 clearly taught it was still to be done on the 8th day. I said this made his entire argument false and fall apart. They immediately went to commercial and dropped me (the last time they carried me through the commercial to continue discussing), and since they had no other callers, clearly this was just to get me off the air. He then got on air and said I was irrational and that it didn't matter what I had said, because the part about 8-days in verse 17 was an unchanged part of the Bible, and it was done years later.
Literally everything he said was wrong and false. I would have happily engaged on the Book of Abraham had they allowed me to stay, but I wasn't given the chance or asked. In any case, as I always say, if the truth about Mormonism is so bad, why do people need to lie about it. The fact he has before mentioned going to the Joseph Smith Papers website and that he has a copy of the RLDS JST means he is either stupid and has been duped, or he is a deceptive liar. He really has taken any third option off of the table by claiming to have read from these original documents.
I will try to circle back and get the link for their webcast where they put me on air both weeks. But you can always know that when someone's main credential is they were a Mormon for "x" number of years and held some high position, that they are probably lacking in the facts department. Reminds me of Shawn McCraney. I would love to have a conversation of substance. I started from a position that maybe he and his wife are just confused. I will let you decide if that holds up to the light of continuing Truth.
Saturday, October 10, 2015
Refusing Calvinism
I mentioned a while back about running into Matt Slick at the Manti Pageant, and his refusal to honestly answer what Acts 2:38 was teaching. I have been listening to a lot of online debates between various individuals over the past several weeks, and came upon a debate between Matt Slick and a fellow named Lou Rugg. I have never heard of Lou Rugg before, but he was arguing the Free Will position in opposition to Mr. Slick's Calvinistic based predestination.
Towards the end of the debate, Mr. Rugg cited a passage from Proverbs 1:23-29 which I personally find the most devastating response to Calvinism's Irresistible Grace I have ever heard.
To catch everyone up, Irresistible Grace is the doctrine that God will save those he choses for salvation, no matter what their state is emotionally or otherwise. In other words, if God wants you saved, he will regenerate you so that you will then unfailingly exercise faith and confession and persevere in the faith to salvation, and no one or no thing can get in the way, including yourself. In Calvinism, there is no free will.
So Mr. Rugg cites Proverbs 1:24. It reads
The whole passage is about God, through Wisdom, calling us to accept Him and be saved.
But man refuses. Remember, God called. Remember Romans 8:30?
30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Mr. Rugg cited a few more verses, but the damage is obvious. So then he asks Mr.Slick the critical question at the 59 minute mark of their debate:
Mr. Slick replied he did not think that he could put it in a sentence without thinking about it for a while first. Mr. Rugg then clearly explained the problem, and essentially taunted Mr. Slick to answer:
Mr Slick responded by saying he needed time to respond, and he would publish an answer later. Here is what he wrote:
Instead, Mr. Slick plays this game of redefining terms into his own circular reasoning to reach the result through fiat of terms. Mr. Slick's approach is akin to someone unable to vote because they are too young saying:
The minor could not vote. If you define believing in God as God irresistibly calling you, then there is no logical or possible way for an atheist or anyone else to believe in God unless God gives you that ability. Only a Calvinist would think that if God enables you to believe, you must believe. Yet the Bible teaches we have agency. We have a will which, in matters of our personal salvation, is honored by God, and we are allowed to harden our hearts, despite God trying to save us. Consider this passage from Ephesians 4:17-24:
In other words, Matt Slick proves again that not only are his Calvinistic arguments illogical, but when he says something totally stupid, he will beat his chest and claim victory.
I refuse to applaud such silliness.
Towards the end of the debate, Mr. Rugg cited a passage from Proverbs 1:23-29 which I personally find the most devastating response to Calvinism's Irresistible Grace I have ever heard.
To catch everyone up, Irresistible Grace is the doctrine that God will save those he choses for salvation, no matter what their state is emotionally or otherwise. In other words, if God wants you saved, he will regenerate you so that you will then unfailingly exercise faith and confession and persevere in the faith to salvation, and no one or no thing can get in the way, including yourself. In Calvinism, there is no free will.
So Mr. Rugg cites Proverbs 1:24. It reads
24But since you refuse to listen when I call and no one pays attention when I stretch out my hand,
The whole passage is about God, through Wisdom, calling us to accept Him and be saved.
But man refuses. Remember, God called. Remember Romans 8:30?
30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Mr. Rugg cited a few more verses, but the damage is obvious. So then he asks Mr.Slick the critical question at the 59 minute mark of their debate:
"I’m going to ask you to put the word refuse in a logical sentence where the person refusing isn’t able..."
Mr. Slick replied he did not think that he could put it in a sentence without thinking about it for a while first. Mr. Rugg then clearly explained the problem, and essentially taunted Mr. Slick to answer:
"I asked you to put the word refuse in a sentence where the person refusing isn’t able. It should be easy for you. I mean, Matt, even for us to continue? This is showing ability. They refused. They could’ve. In other words, Matt, I’m sitting in my chair right now. I refuse to stand up. That means I can stand up. I’m able to stand up, but I am refusing to stand up. If I have no legs I can’t refuse to stand up, I’m unable to stand up. Because I have called and you refused, because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the Lord. First of all the word choose implies ability. The word refuse, implies ability."
Mr Slick responded by saying he needed time to respond, and he would publish an answer later. Here is what he wrote:
"I, an atheist, refuse to believe in the Biblical God by my own, unassisted, natural free will even though the Bible tells me to believe in him." There, he cannot do what he is commanded to do by God. Now, if you say that God then enables him, then you admit he can’t do what is commanded to do on his own. He has to be enabled.This, of course, is a complete waste of electronic type. The challenge issued by Mr. Rugg was to use the word "refused" in a logical manner, consistent with the passage in Proverbs 1:24. The verse in 1:24 states clearly that the people "refused" to respond. People can only refuse to do something if there is a possibility or ability to do the thing they are refusing to do.
Instead, Mr. Slick plays this game of redefining terms into his own circular reasoning to reach the result through fiat of terms. Mr. Slick's approach is akin to someone unable to vote because they are too young saying:
"I, an under-age minor, refuse to vote in the election, even though my civics teacher says everyone should vote."
The minor could not vote. If you define believing in God as God irresistibly calling you, then there is no logical or possible way for an atheist or anyone else to believe in God unless God gives you that ability. Only a Calvinist would think that if God enables you to believe, you must believe. Yet the Bible teaches we have agency. We have a will which, in matters of our personal salvation, is honored by God, and we are allowed to harden our hearts, despite God trying to save us. Consider this passage from Ephesians 4:17-24:
17So I say this, and insist in the Lord, that you no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18They are darkened in their understanding, being alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardness of their hearts. 19Because they are callous, they have given themselves over to indecency for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness. 20But you did not learn about Christ like this, 21if indeed you heard about him and were taught in him, just as the truth is in Jesus. 22You were taught with reference to your former way of life to lay aside the old man who is being corrupted in accordance with deceitful desires, 23to be renewed in the spirit of your mind,24and to put on the new man who has been created in God’s image – in righteousness and holiness that comes from truth.This passage drips with choice, learning and the ability to reject God's gracious gifts.
In other words, Matt Slick proves again that not only are his Calvinistic arguments illogical, but when he says something totally stupid, he will beat his chest and claim victory.
I refuse to applaud such silliness.
Monday, August 03, 2015
Manti 2015 Part 1
Funny thing this year. My good friend wanted to go down to Manti with me to just watch the conversations I got into. Since our wives are also good friends, we all rode down together, along with his son who had recently returned from his mission.
We wound up speaking to five different individuals or groups of individuals, and my friend and his son filmed it for the heck of it.
The first guy we encountered was a former member of the LDS Church who basically took the view that the Trinity was true, he knew it, so anything LDS was wrong and Joseph Smith was a deceiver. He particularly didn't like the concept that people could become like God, and that there was a Mother in Heaven. As it happened, I had the book by William Dever with me, "Did God Have a Wife", and pointed out to this fellow that Dever, as one of the foremost Biblical archaeologists in the world, concluded the answer to the question was "Yes". Dever himself discovered an ancient artifact with the inscription "To Jehovah and his Asherah", and he walks people through the wealth of evidence that not only did the Hebrews believe God had a wife, but that they had children who were also gods. While I felt the gentleman was a very nice guy and well read about his personal belief system, he acknowledged openly he had no interest and never had read anything about the early beliefs held by the Hebrews or Christians.
He raised what I think is a common misunderstanding by most people about other people's beliefs. We discussed the passage in Acts 17:18 where the understanding of the Greek philosophers on Mars Hill in Athens is stated, in the King James Bible, as: "He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he (Paul)preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection."
The key element here is the word selected by Luke (author of Acts) and probably used by the Philosophers: Daimonian. The word has reference to intermediate gods acting between the real Gods and humanity. Elsewhere in the NT they are always used for evil spirits, but the Greek usage was they were a lesser divinity as well.
The use of the word Daimonian by the philosophers is quite instructive. After being told by Paul about Jesus and the resurrection, they conclude Jesus is a god of lower rank or power than God the Father. In other words, the passage not only doesn't teach anything approaching the concept of the Trinity, but on its own it contradicts it, teaching instead that there are multiple real gods, and Jesus is subordinate to God.
The man I was speaking with replied, "I wouldn't base my faith on that verse." I replied that I never said I did. But I was not making the point clearly enough. I see all these verses as bread crumbs and evidence leading to truth. The guy seemed irritated that he did not have a good response to the obvious conclusion the verse leads one to. Which is why he wouldn't base his faith on it, since it challenges what he currently believes. But the bigger point is that we assume when someone makes a point which we find challenging, we figure we can evade the point by rejecting it as anomalous, and likewise denigrate the opinion of the challenger by asserting it is in fact him who is uninformed about the "big picture". This fellow said several times "No one can know everything." That was his reason for not caring that he was uninformed about the Biblical issues he was preaching against, or for that matter Mormon issues, even as an ex-Mormon.
That conversation ended quite amicably, and I have spoken with him in years past. I just don't see him caring enough to do any research about the topics we discussed because it really would threaten his core concepts about Biblically based doctrines.
I next spoke with a nice kid who was an ex-Mormon from California. He was clearly a very studious kid. However, he had bought into the Evangelical position that baptism can be anything, but especially in the NT it probably ISN'T in water. That is just garbage. I gave him one of my brochures on baptism, and pointed out the examples of early Church Fathers and writers describing in explicit detail that to be "born again" was to be baptized in water and receive the Holy Spirit. We also discussed the root of the Greek word "baptizo", which is "bapto", and means to dip something into a liquid. Think Jesus dipping his bread into the sop at the last supper (John 13:26), or the rich man asking Abraham to send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and help his unbearable thirst (Luke 16:24). Revelation 19:13 is similarly interesting because a garment is dipped or dyed in blood. Note in these root examples, the liquid is identified.
Baptizo is a little different. By default it means to dip in water. We see it used of Jewish ordinances in Mark 7:4 or Luke 11:38. Which means it is highly unlikely that Mark and Luke would just get a wild hare to make it mean anything they want. But chain the touch points together. In Mark 1:5 John the baptizer calls people to repent and be baptized, and then in Mark 1:8 he makes it explicit that he is baptizing with water. But he does so to affirm the default meaning is with water, and Jesus will baptize with the Holy Ghost. But the line in the sand is baptism is in water. We see John 1:25-28 produce the parallel account of John baptizing with water. While there are passages where baptism refers to an immersion in an experience (Mark 10:38) or to baptism of the Holy Ghost (Mk 1:8; Jn 1:33, Acts 1:5; Acts 11:16, etc.). But note the difference: When they baptize in something other than water, they mention the different type of baptismal experience, and even contrast water with Spirit or the something else.
As some of you may have heard me previously mention, the best Greek-English Biblical Lexicon is "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testamant and Other Early Christian Literature", 3rd Edition, published in 2000 and abbreviate as BDAG for the initials of the various others involved.
BDAG notes on page 164-165 under the entry for Baptizo the following: "2. to use water in a rite for purpose of renewing or establishing a relationship with God, plunge, dip, wash, baptize."
It then lists all of the John the baptizer verses, about 2 dozen, and then lists Jesus' baptismal activities and the use of water baptism as the method of joining the Church after Jesus' death. They include Acts 2:38 and 2:41 and another 2-dozen or so passages.
So we discussed the fact that baptism in Acts 2:38 meant water baptism. Not in his mind. He felt it was just a conversion experience, and no water involved. He had no interest in authoritative sources.
As we were wrapping up, Matt Slick of CARM came over to get into the conversation. I have spoken with Matt in the past, but he either did not remember or chose to ignore the memory. So I posed the question to him as well: Does Acts 2:38 teach baptism provides forgiveness of sins? Without going down all the side paths he tried to go, I kept bringing it back to this question: Do the words mean what is written. For anyone who has forgotten, the context is that after Peter preaches to the Jews at the day of Pentecost, they as Peter and the Apostles this famous question: "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Peter replies: "Acts 2:38: Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
Pretty clear passage. So first he tried to explain the passage away as lacking full context. It was incomplete because it did not address if Faith were needed. But the passage does address all those areas of concern, if you read down to verse 46. So I asked him again, does the passage teach baptism can forgive sins. Again, he said no, tried to deflect to later chapters in Acts. He then tried to pull a piece of very poor scholarship out. It is called the "causal eis", because the word "eis" in Greek is translated as the word "for". He asserted it should be translated "because". In modern times this argument has its source in Julius Mantey's Greek grammar. His arguments were thoroughly devasted by Dr. Ralph Marcus, to the point where in his later life, Mantey likewise concluded that the best translation for the passage was "for the remission of sins", leaving exactly nobody who believed the "causal eis". Yet here was Matt Slick trying to pull out this false teaching to support his view. When I noted Mantey himself had recanted such an opinion, I asked him yet again if the passage taught that baptism can lead to the forgiveness of sins. He again said no. At that point I shook his hand, and said "Matt, it's been nice to meet you." I started to leave, he wanted to argue some point, and I just said "I'm good." He retorted "Romans 5:1, why would you not believe God's word? What are you running for?" I said, "I'm not running, its a waste of time." He said, "Yes you are, Romans 5:1, I'm going to prove you wrong, what are you running for?"
I leave it to those who were there to decide if I ran. For my part, I just didn't feel it was leading anywhere. Mr. Slick, for what I think are obvious reasons, refused to provide a cogent justification of his view of Acts 2:38, and had even used a source in his defense which he most certainly must have known was not valid to try and justify his false interpretation of the passage. Maybe he didn't know, I can't know for sure, but he knew exactly who Mantey was, and therefore he should have known of his retraction in regards to this passage. In my opinion this made him a less than honest party in the conversation. You can hear on the video as I walk away him saying to the kid I had started speaking with "That guy's a bully. He's a bully." For the life of me, I don't know how I can be a bully by simply defending my faith, not attacking theirs. And he seems to have forgotten he walked over and engaged me, not the other way around. Unless he feels like it is unfair for me to debate scripture with him because he can't keep up, I am at a loss to know what would constitute me being the bully. Truly, I am sorry if he feels that way.
I will discuss the other conversations in Part 2.
We wound up speaking to five different individuals or groups of individuals, and my friend and his son filmed it for the heck of it.
The first guy we encountered was a former member of the LDS Church who basically took the view that the Trinity was true, he knew it, so anything LDS was wrong and Joseph Smith was a deceiver. He particularly didn't like the concept that people could become like God, and that there was a Mother in Heaven. As it happened, I had the book by William Dever with me, "Did God Have a Wife", and pointed out to this fellow that Dever, as one of the foremost Biblical archaeologists in the world, concluded the answer to the question was "Yes". Dever himself discovered an ancient artifact with the inscription "To Jehovah and his Asherah", and he walks people through the wealth of evidence that not only did the Hebrews believe God had a wife, but that they had children who were also gods. While I felt the gentleman was a very nice guy and well read about his personal belief system, he acknowledged openly he had no interest and never had read anything about the early beliefs held by the Hebrews or Christians.
He raised what I think is a common misunderstanding by most people about other people's beliefs. We discussed the passage in Acts 17:18 where the understanding of the Greek philosophers on Mars Hill in Athens is stated, in the King James Bible, as: "He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he (Paul)preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection."
The key element here is the word selected by Luke (author of Acts) and probably used by the Philosophers: Daimonian. The word has reference to intermediate gods acting between the real Gods and humanity. Elsewhere in the NT they are always used for evil spirits, but the Greek usage was they were a lesser divinity as well.
The use of the word Daimonian by the philosophers is quite instructive. After being told by Paul about Jesus and the resurrection, they conclude Jesus is a god of lower rank or power than God the Father. In other words, the passage not only doesn't teach anything approaching the concept of the Trinity, but on its own it contradicts it, teaching instead that there are multiple real gods, and Jesus is subordinate to God.
The man I was speaking with replied, "I wouldn't base my faith on that verse." I replied that I never said I did. But I was not making the point clearly enough. I see all these verses as bread crumbs and evidence leading to truth. The guy seemed irritated that he did not have a good response to the obvious conclusion the verse leads one to. Which is why he wouldn't base his faith on it, since it challenges what he currently believes. But the bigger point is that we assume when someone makes a point which we find challenging, we figure we can evade the point by rejecting it as anomalous, and likewise denigrate the opinion of the challenger by asserting it is in fact him who is uninformed about the "big picture". This fellow said several times "No one can know everything." That was his reason for not caring that he was uninformed about the Biblical issues he was preaching against, or for that matter Mormon issues, even as an ex-Mormon.
That conversation ended quite amicably, and I have spoken with him in years past. I just don't see him caring enough to do any research about the topics we discussed because it really would threaten his core concepts about Biblically based doctrines.
I next spoke with a nice kid who was an ex-Mormon from California. He was clearly a very studious kid. However, he had bought into the Evangelical position that baptism can be anything, but especially in the NT it probably ISN'T in water. That is just garbage. I gave him one of my brochures on baptism, and pointed out the examples of early Church Fathers and writers describing in explicit detail that to be "born again" was to be baptized in water and receive the Holy Spirit. We also discussed the root of the Greek word "baptizo", which is "bapto", and means to dip something into a liquid. Think Jesus dipping his bread into the sop at the last supper (John 13:26), or the rich man asking Abraham to send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and help his unbearable thirst (Luke 16:24). Revelation 19:13 is similarly interesting because a garment is dipped or dyed in blood. Note in these root examples, the liquid is identified.
Baptizo is a little different. By default it means to dip in water. We see it used of Jewish ordinances in Mark 7:4 or Luke 11:38. Which means it is highly unlikely that Mark and Luke would just get a wild hare to make it mean anything they want. But chain the touch points together. In Mark 1:5 John the baptizer calls people to repent and be baptized, and then in Mark 1:8 he makes it explicit that he is baptizing with water. But he does so to affirm the default meaning is with water, and Jesus will baptize with the Holy Ghost. But the line in the sand is baptism is in water. We see John 1:25-28 produce the parallel account of John baptizing with water. While there are passages where baptism refers to an immersion in an experience (Mark 10:38) or to baptism of the Holy Ghost (Mk 1:8; Jn 1:33, Acts 1:5; Acts 11:16, etc.). But note the difference: When they baptize in something other than water, they mention the different type of baptismal experience, and even contrast water with Spirit or the something else.
As some of you may have heard me previously mention, the best Greek-English Biblical Lexicon is "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testamant and Other Early Christian Literature", 3rd Edition, published in 2000 and abbreviate as BDAG for the initials of the various others involved.
BDAG notes on page 164-165 under the entry for Baptizo the following: "2. to use water in a rite for purpose of renewing or establishing a relationship with God, plunge, dip, wash, baptize."
It then lists all of the John the baptizer verses, about 2 dozen, and then lists Jesus' baptismal activities and the use of water baptism as the method of joining the Church after Jesus' death. They include Acts 2:38 and 2:41 and another 2-dozen or so passages.
So we discussed the fact that baptism in Acts 2:38 meant water baptism. Not in his mind. He felt it was just a conversion experience, and no water involved. He had no interest in authoritative sources.
As we were wrapping up, Matt Slick of CARM came over to get into the conversation. I have spoken with Matt in the past, but he either did not remember or chose to ignore the memory. So I posed the question to him as well: Does Acts 2:38 teach baptism provides forgiveness of sins? Without going down all the side paths he tried to go, I kept bringing it back to this question: Do the words mean what is written. For anyone who has forgotten, the context is that after Peter preaches to the Jews at the day of Pentecost, they as Peter and the Apostles this famous question: "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" Peter replies: "Acts 2:38: Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
Pretty clear passage. So first he tried to explain the passage away as lacking full context. It was incomplete because it did not address if Faith were needed. But the passage does address all those areas of concern, if you read down to verse 46. So I asked him again, does the passage teach baptism can forgive sins. Again, he said no, tried to deflect to later chapters in Acts. He then tried to pull a piece of very poor scholarship out. It is called the "causal eis", because the word "eis" in Greek is translated as the word "for". He asserted it should be translated "because". In modern times this argument has its source in Julius Mantey's Greek grammar. His arguments were thoroughly devasted by Dr. Ralph Marcus, to the point where in his later life, Mantey likewise concluded that the best translation for the passage was "for the remission of sins", leaving exactly nobody who believed the "causal eis". Yet here was Matt Slick trying to pull out this false teaching to support his view. When I noted Mantey himself had recanted such an opinion, I asked him yet again if the passage taught that baptism can lead to the forgiveness of sins. He again said no. At that point I shook his hand, and said "Matt, it's been nice to meet you." I started to leave, he wanted to argue some point, and I just said "I'm good." He retorted "Romans 5:1, why would you not believe God's word? What are you running for?" I said, "I'm not running, its a waste of time." He said, "Yes you are, Romans 5:1, I'm going to prove you wrong, what are you running for?"
I leave it to those who were there to decide if I ran. For my part, I just didn't feel it was leading anywhere. Mr. Slick, for what I think are obvious reasons, refused to provide a cogent justification of his view of Acts 2:38, and had even used a source in his defense which he most certainly must have known was not valid to try and justify his false interpretation of the passage. Maybe he didn't know, I can't know for sure, but he knew exactly who Mantey was, and therefore he should have known of his retraction in regards to this passage. In my opinion this made him a less than honest party in the conversation. You can hear on the video as I walk away him saying to the kid I had started speaking with "That guy's a bully. He's a bully." For the life of me, I don't know how I can be a bully by simply defending my faith, not attacking theirs. And he seems to have forgotten he walked over and engaged me, not the other way around. Unless he feels like it is unfair for me to debate scripture with him because he can't keep up, I am at a loss to know what would constitute me being the bully. Truly, I am sorry if he feels that way.
I will discuss the other conversations in Part 2.
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Brochures Anyone
I have been so busy with work, I have not checked in here for many, many months. Did everyone get brochures that wanted them? I have several different brochures on various topics. Salvation, issues at Manti argued by anti-Mormons there, a really good one on baptism as a requirement for salvation, the nature of God in Mormonism compared to non-LDS. I just completed one addressing the so-called "Impossible Gospel of Mormonism", which reviews not only the abuse of Moroni 10:32 and the passages from "The Miracle of Forgiveness", but shows how the LDS perspective is both Biblical and built on the foundation of Grace and personal responsibility.
Anyway, as always shoot me a note and I will send them to your email addresses. As you may have noticed, I never post questions or comments which contain people's email addresses to make sure their privacy is protected.
Thanks again for reading. I will hopefully get posts out shortly on Manti 2015, Lee Baker's distorted ministry against LDS beliefs, and one built on responding to The Impossible Gospel of Mormonism by the professional anti-Mormons who promote that error.
Anyway, as always shoot me a note and I will send them to your email addresses. As you may have noticed, I never post questions or comments which contain people's email addresses to make sure their privacy is protected.
Thanks again for reading. I will hopefully get posts out shortly on Manti 2015, Lee Baker's distorted ministry against LDS beliefs, and one built on responding to The Impossible Gospel of Mormonism by the professional anti-Mormons who promote that error.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Christians Feeling The Spirit in Face of Atheism
I have been actively engaging a few friends of mine who are repeatedly yelling about the lack of proof for the existence of God.
What has been fun is to see all those Christians who attack Mormons as irrational because they base their testimony upon spiritual experiences, now have to use their own version of spiritual experiences as their ultimate proof.
Let's face it, all Christians remain Christians because they feel better being a Christian. They leave because they don't feel the Spirit. This is true of Mormons and non-Mormon Christians.
But when non-LDS Christians try to engage Mormons, they attack the "burning in the bosom" as self-delusional wishful thinking by Mormons. Something Mormons "hide behind".
I have gone to Christian book stores for many years, and you could always find books on receiving answers to prayer, spiritual experiences, personal revelation and the like. But critics of LDS beliefs conveniently ignore those members of their own faith traditions. Instead, they try to substitute historical or scholarly information, as if you could study your way into knowing Christianity was the only true faith.
That is an exercise in self-authentication.
Only through experiencing the Holy Spirit can you realize that ultimate truth is not a set of hypotheses which you can ever completely test. It is not something which can be studied and arrived at without divine assistance. Jesus is truth, because God alone can know all things, and therefore can know all truth. He can confirm our faith.
I have been blessed with a few spiritual experiences which have provided actual proof to me of the life after this life. I was informed of the passing of a relative in a dream, told my family of the message, and then got the phone call 20-minutes later that it had happened. The message was delivered by three of my deceased relatives, and a voice spoke to me, audibly but in my mind while sleeping.
I don't know the truth of all things. But I know their is a God who knows the past, present and future, and there is a life after this life. That is enough to know that atheism is false.
I was accused of suffering from cognitive dissonance the other day because I accept science yet have faith. But the basic premise of cognitive dissonance is that you have two philosophies which take you in opposing directions, and therefore require you to irrationally avoid information which conflicts with one of the beliefs, and you eventually become so uncomfortable with the dissonance, you eventually reject the view which makes you uncomfortable.
I can tell you I am perfectly at ease with faith/supernatural existence of God, and science. I don't believe there is a God or a life after this one, I know there is. So my discomfort, were I to have one, would actually be striving to get the theoretical world of science more in line with ultimate truth, that there is a God.
Because I know God cannot be found in a telescope or a Petri dish, the lack of scientific proof for God is about as important to me as calculus is to a dog. Because the world cannot understand it does not make it untrue.
What has been fun is to see all those Christians who attack Mormons as irrational because they base their testimony upon spiritual experiences, now have to use their own version of spiritual experiences as their ultimate proof.
Let's face it, all Christians remain Christians because they feel better being a Christian. They leave because they don't feel the Spirit. This is true of Mormons and non-Mormon Christians.
But when non-LDS Christians try to engage Mormons, they attack the "burning in the bosom" as self-delusional wishful thinking by Mormons. Something Mormons "hide behind".
I have gone to Christian book stores for many years, and you could always find books on receiving answers to prayer, spiritual experiences, personal revelation and the like. But critics of LDS beliefs conveniently ignore those members of their own faith traditions. Instead, they try to substitute historical or scholarly information, as if you could study your way into knowing Christianity was the only true faith.
That is an exercise in self-authentication.
Only through experiencing the Holy Spirit can you realize that ultimate truth is not a set of hypotheses which you can ever completely test. It is not something which can be studied and arrived at without divine assistance. Jesus is truth, because God alone can know all things, and therefore can know all truth. He can confirm our faith.
I have been blessed with a few spiritual experiences which have provided actual proof to me of the life after this life. I was informed of the passing of a relative in a dream, told my family of the message, and then got the phone call 20-minutes later that it had happened. The message was delivered by three of my deceased relatives, and a voice spoke to me, audibly but in my mind while sleeping.
I don't know the truth of all things. But I know their is a God who knows the past, present and future, and there is a life after this life. That is enough to know that atheism is false.
I was accused of suffering from cognitive dissonance the other day because I accept science yet have faith. But the basic premise of cognitive dissonance is that you have two philosophies which take you in opposing directions, and therefore require you to irrationally avoid information which conflicts with one of the beliefs, and you eventually become so uncomfortable with the dissonance, you eventually reject the view which makes you uncomfortable.
I can tell you I am perfectly at ease with faith/supernatural existence of God, and science. I don't believe there is a God or a life after this one, I know there is. So my discomfort, were I to have one, would actually be striving to get the theoretical world of science more in line with ultimate truth, that there is a God.
Because I know God cannot be found in a telescope or a Petri dish, the lack of scientific proof for God is about as important to me as calculus is to a dog. Because the world cannot understand it does not make it untrue.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Update on Gay Marriage
This is just a quick FYI to my post that I thought the "gay marriage" issue is a relatively small social issue, so long as something is done to deal with children rights to have access to biological parents. The main points of update are as follows:
Today the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) released their annual nationwide survey, and for the first time they survey sexual orientation. What they found was 1.6% of the population identify as being homosexual, 0.6% identify as bisexual, 1% refused to identify or said they were "something else" (interesting!), and 96.6% said they are heterosexual. This is considered a gold standard survey due to the large sample size (over 33,000 people) and their surveying method of face to face interviews with telephone follow-ups. Aside from the headline issues, the rest of the survey is worth reading.
2. A recent extremely small survey in Australia (315 parents, 500 children) is being touted as "the Largest Survey of Gay Parents" and the like, and concludes the kids are better off. Well, not so fast. The survey is not one which actually measures anything. It simply asked the parents how their kids are doing. It is also worth noting the author of the study is raising two children with his own homosexual partner, which is not an insignificant issue given the overall weakness of the supposed data, and the vastness of their claims. Instead, I have cited an actual quantitative study of a U. of Texas researcher, which demonstrated entirely different results, and concluded children raised by same sex parents are not better off. Here is a good summary article to review addressing both studies. Because the U of Texas authors results were so politically incorrect, his results were challenged as doctored by his critics, who even made a formal complaint to the University. Well, be careful what you ask for as a critic, because the U of T did a thorough review of his data and evidence, and said there is no evidence of doctoring or fraud. As is usual of touching such a political third rail as rejecting politically correct views, the U of T announcement did note that his study could still be seriously flawed, there is just no evidence of fraud or data doctoring. Way to back your guy, U of T.
Here is a blogger's analysis of the controversy. The results are still attacked by critics for the small sample size they studied. But the problem is that if you apply a scientific standard to comparing apples to apples, as I noted, it is nearly impossible to find any families in the USA where two same-sex involved domestic couples have been together for 18 years or more raising children together. This is not hard to find among heterosexuals, though the pool is sadly getting smaller. But instability of relationships in same-sex couples that you will not find "thousands" of such relationships for a survey. The actual Family Structures survey is here. I could not find the U of Texas study in full, so here is a very lengthy presentation of its content by the Family Research Council.
As anyone knows, these are very touchy issues. As I have stated, I think the impact of allowing gay marriage is almost zero, though I would prefer the name 'civil union' or something similar, as I think marriage has the traditional understanding of being between a man and a woman. However, I think the current research, combined with basic common sense, tells us children have better outcomes with both genders of parents active in their lives. Homosexuals feel attacked as bad people or a social pariah if their parenting is seen as being less than perfect for raising children. But it is actually no different than the myriad of studies which show children of divorce or other single parent families or step families tend to have more issues as adults or children than kids from intact two parent families. There is a range of real outcomes in those groups, including great adults from abusive divorced parents and horrible adults from seemingly solid two parent families. But we don't try to put the worst of one group against the best of another. Kids deserve to have access to their two biological parents, because they need role models. If those parents are unfit,then we protect the kids. But kids are not pets, and are not an accessory. If a person chooses to live in a downtown apartment, they can't complain they don't have a lot of private yard space. It is politically incorrect to acknowledge the biological differences of people, and to note the different roles men and women play in life. I think much more study on this subject needs to be done before we assert as a fact there is no impact on children raised in same sex couples as compared to other relationship models. It would be refreshing if we could have a study of all same sex couples with children who have been together for 18 years or more, and we end up with data both sides can agree upon. Typically liberals want to run with the most conservative approach to environmental issues or personal care issues. Think about the ideas around giving money to too many people including people who are living off the system, as opposed to too few people, and seeing some folks suffering. Think of environmental issues which are always erring on the side of preservation of habitat or species, or dealing with cutting down on carbon emissions to try to head off a possible problem with global warming. Yet we ignore both studies which are considered "controversial" because they buck Politically Correct views and our vast academic data of unstable homes negative impact on children, simply because the unscientific views on this issue are not popular. My experience with homosexuals is they are absolutely like most anyone else in terms of interacting with me. That is the same with divorced people, single moms or married couples. But I know statistically single families and step-families are not as good for children. In a perfect world, kids should have a right to their bio parents. That right should not be excised from a child simply because homosexual couples want kids. Maybe the best way to keep both parents involved is to require people wanting to donate a child to their friends to have some financial obligation for that child, regardless of the financial position of the same-sex parents. It is true that where your treasure is, there you will find your heart. Children deserve the hearts of their biological parents, so barring that, they deserve their parents treasure. For most people, the love of a child they are involved with will eventually melt the heart of even those who think children are gifts, like a bottle of wine, they can give away to show how much they like their friends. Kids in same sex parent homes have a much higher probability of being on welfare or other social services due to the fact same sex families tend to separate at much higher rates than heterosexual families. So putting money aside for those children is not a bad idea. That is, if you care about the children.
Today the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) released their annual nationwide survey, and for the first time they survey sexual orientation. What they found was 1.6% of the population identify as being homosexual, 0.6% identify as bisexual, 1% refused to identify or said they were "something else" (interesting!), and 96.6% said they are heterosexual. This is considered a gold standard survey due to the large sample size (over 33,000 people) and their surveying method of face to face interviews with telephone follow-ups. Aside from the headline issues, the rest of the survey is worth reading.
2. A recent extremely small survey in Australia (315 parents, 500 children) is being touted as "the Largest Survey of Gay Parents" and the like, and concludes the kids are better off. Well, not so fast. The survey is not one which actually measures anything. It simply asked the parents how their kids are doing. It is also worth noting the author of the study is raising two children with his own homosexual partner, which is not an insignificant issue given the overall weakness of the supposed data, and the vastness of their claims. Instead, I have cited an actual quantitative study of a U. of Texas researcher, which demonstrated entirely different results, and concluded children raised by same sex parents are not better off. Here is a good summary article to review addressing both studies. Because the U of Texas authors results were so politically incorrect, his results were challenged as doctored by his critics, who even made a formal complaint to the University. Well, be careful what you ask for as a critic, because the U of T did a thorough review of his data and evidence, and said there is no evidence of doctoring or fraud. As is usual of touching such a political third rail as rejecting politically correct views, the U of T announcement did note that his study could still be seriously flawed, there is just no evidence of fraud or data doctoring. Way to back your guy, U of T.
Here is a blogger's analysis of the controversy. The results are still attacked by critics for the small sample size they studied. But the problem is that if you apply a scientific standard to comparing apples to apples, as I noted, it is nearly impossible to find any families in the USA where two same-sex involved domestic couples have been together for 18 years or more raising children together. This is not hard to find among heterosexuals, though the pool is sadly getting smaller. But instability of relationships in same-sex couples that you will not find "thousands" of such relationships for a survey. The actual Family Structures survey is here. I could not find the U of Texas study in full, so here is a very lengthy presentation of its content by the Family Research Council.
As anyone knows, these are very touchy issues. As I have stated, I think the impact of allowing gay marriage is almost zero, though I would prefer the name 'civil union' or something similar, as I think marriage has the traditional understanding of being between a man and a woman. However, I think the current research, combined with basic common sense, tells us children have better outcomes with both genders of parents active in their lives. Homosexuals feel attacked as bad people or a social pariah if their parenting is seen as being less than perfect for raising children. But it is actually no different than the myriad of studies which show children of divorce or other single parent families or step families tend to have more issues as adults or children than kids from intact two parent families. There is a range of real outcomes in those groups, including great adults from abusive divorced parents and horrible adults from seemingly solid two parent families. But we don't try to put the worst of one group against the best of another. Kids deserve to have access to their two biological parents, because they need role models. If those parents are unfit,then we protect the kids. But kids are not pets, and are not an accessory. If a person chooses to live in a downtown apartment, they can't complain they don't have a lot of private yard space. It is politically incorrect to acknowledge the biological differences of people, and to note the different roles men and women play in life. I think much more study on this subject needs to be done before we assert as a fact there is no impact on children raised in same sex couples as compared to other relationship models. It would be refreshing if we could have a study of all same sex couples with children who have been together for 18 years or more, and we end up with data both sides can agree upon. Typically liberals want to run with the most conservative approach to environmental issues or personal care issues. Think about the ideas around giving money to too many people including people who are living off the system, as opposed to too few people, and seeing some folks suffering. Think of environmental issues which are always erring on the side of preservation of habitat or species, or dealing with cutting down on carbon emissions to try to head off a possible problem with global warming. Yet we ignore both studies which are considered "controversial" because they buck Politically Correct views and our vast academic data of unstable homes negative impact on children, simply because the unscientific views on this issue are not popular. My experience with homosexuals is they are absolutely like most anyone else in terms of interacting with me. That is the same with divorced people, single moms or married couples. But I know statistically single families and step-families are not as good for children. In a perfect world, kids should have a right to their bio parents. That right should not be excised from a child simply because homosexual couples want kids. Maybe the best way to keep both parents involved is to require people wanting to donate a child to their friends to have some financial obligation for that child, regardless of the financial position of the same-sex parents. It is true that where your treasure is, there you will find your heart. Children deserve the hearts of their biological parents, so barring that, they deserve their parents treasure. For most people, the love of a child they are involved with will eventually melt the heart of even those who think children are gifts, like a bottle of wine, they can give away to show how much they like their friends. Kids in same sex parent homes have a much higher probability of being on welfare or other social services due to the fact same sex families tend to separate at much higher rates than heterosexual families. So putting money aside for those children is not a bad idea. That is, if you care about the children.
Saturday, June 28, 2014
Manti Mess(ages)
I sneaked down to Manti on Thursday and Friday to visit with the annual pageant Anti-Mormon outreach. Thursday was spent speaking the whole three hours to about 5 different people in what I think was productive. Productive is a loose term, but I feel good when people I have made feel sort of misinformed about pretty much everything they believe about Mormonism still like me and shake my hand when we are done.
I have a brochure I created for Manti this year which focuses on several non-LDS scholars' statements around the reality of the Hebrew belief in real plural gods. It also discusses the mis-translation of John 1:1, which should say "and the Word was a god"(or words to the effect that the Word had the same nature as The God, but is a different member of that class of beings)and how the way most Christians interpret it actually make the verse a modalist or Sabellean heresy. Finally, it also provides extensive statements by early Christians that people can become gods, with a list of references to the concept in the Bible. If you would like a copy, send me your email as a comment. I won't post your address, I will just email you the brochure. No minimum donation required :-)
Friday night I had several very positive conversations with folks, and I circulated more. I was speaking with one gentleman from England when some guy name Jason walked up, listened for about 10 minutes or so, then started asking questions but not waiting for answers.
"Didn't Joseph Smith order Gov Boggs killed?" "Weren't the Mormons stealing land in Missouri, so they were not really victims?" "Didn't having a standing militia violate federal law?" "Didn't Joseph print his own money and steal the real currency?" "Isn't that illegal?"
These questions, and potential exchange, looks easy on the surface. You think, he is asking a question, he wants an answer.
Truth is, Jason was giving his answer in the form of a question, and did not care to hear my answer or response at all. He wanted me to answer yes or no, and if I disagreed with his conclusions, he called me deceptive. He eventually started in with personal insults ("You're a mile wide and an inch deep, aren't you?"), so I said to him I would not talk with ignorant insulting people, and turn away from him. What was helpful was he did this in front of two other gentlemen whom I had previously had excellent exchanges with, and they were embarrassed by their "Christian Brother's" behavior. I then apologized for calling the guy stupid, and then gave them the answers to the assertions:
1. Joseph did not order the Boggs assassination attempt. No evidence of it.
2. Porter Rockwell was a suspect, but he calmly stated that if he had wanted him dead, he'd be dead. A grand jury agreed, and Rockwell was never indicted. It is commonly believed the would-be assassin was a political rival, though he was never found.
3. I explained that the LDS had organized a protective force, consistent with the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution, under their right to keep and bear arms for self defense. However, the US Government refused to intervene, with President Martin Van Buren famously saying to Joseph Smith, to the effect, "Your cause is just, but I cannot help you." As we know, Joseph prophesied their government would be destroyed, and within 20 years the Whig party was, in fact, completely destroyed. The Republicans emerged, and the Whigs are now just an historical footnote.
4. Related to three, the 10th amendment to the US Constitution was the reason Van Buren could not intervene at the time. After the Civil War the Constitution was amended to allow far more Federal involvement in state issues. Keeping the peace and administering the domestic affairs of the states were seen as exclusively a state's rights issue at the time, and so Van Buren felt he could not take action. Having a standing militia, if in a state of insurrection, would have been a violation of federal law. Arming your people to defend against criminals is not. There was no violation of federal law, and they did not steal land from anyone.
5. The great depression of the late 1830's, which was brought on largely because the Gold Standard limited the amount of money which could be printed, thus limiting the velocity or circulation of money to create new capital, brought hundreds of communities around the country to create their own banking societies. As I mentioned to the guys in Manti, if you have ever seen the movie "It's a Wonderful Life", there is a scene where there is a run on the bank. Jimmy Stewart has people demanding their money. He explains that he cannot give it because it is in someone's home, or another person's business, etc. This is the concept of cash reserve ratios. If a bank takes in $100, but lends out $95, then if everyone comes in asking for their money, it is not in the bank, it is in assets and out in the community circulating. In Kirtland, they created a banking society. They basically issued IOU's to people, which everyone agreed to accept, in exchange for some cash deposits so they could meet the "hard currency" requirements they all would have. It worked great, until hard currency reserves disappeared. In 1837, the year the Kirtland Bank failed, the US entered a 5 year depression where nearly half of all banks failed, and many other similar banking societies as Kirtland also failed. The crazy land price increases collapsed, so the assets underlying the notes disappeared. Not good for anyone. Joseph left, but I have seen research which shows eventually all were repaid. Joseph left Kirtland with his 6-month pregnant wife the first week of January 1838. It took two months, two winter months, with nearly no money, to get to Missouri. Far from living a rich life, Joseph and Emma suffered too.
6. Finally, was it illegal. Yes, it was. Joseph paid a $1,000 fine for setting it up. But it was also common, as the lack of currency was a problem everywhere on the frontier. It also failed because of the lack of trust and cooperation between members of the Kirtland Safety Society, and under captitalization.
History is not simple, and it is not black and white. If we believe that all Presidents of the LDS Church are always inspired, then we will always be disappointed. They were looking for solutions. At times they felt inspired. Other times they just did their best. At all times they were human. Don't trust humans with your salvation, trust God. But you still have to work with humans for everything else.
Final point. I was walking to leave on the road from the food court to the pageant area. I saw a girl about 10 years old passing out brochures, so I stopped and handed her one of mine. She looked like she was being baited by a child molester. I didn't get it at first, and I laughingly said "If you are going to pass out brochures to the Mormons, why don't you take them too?" She backed away, and a pretty dark haired little girl, also about 10, very nervously said "We have been told not to talk to you." I said, "What? Why is that, because I can answer your questions?" She said no, her daddy had said I was not nice to Christians, and they should not speak with me. She was nervously shaking as she said that, so I said "who is your daddy?" She replied "Keith Walker." I said he was with some ministry, and by now three young men in their twenties had walked over, and they said "Evidence Ministries". I said I would love to talk with her daddy, that it is not true that I am mean to other Christians, and I had even done a short video about her daddy because he had some things wrong about the Mormons. She said she knew I knew him. I jokingly said to one of the Christians I had spoken with earlier in the week who was walking by, "Am I mean to Christians?" Which she just laughed about. The little girl walked away.
Funny thing is, I literally bumped into Keith Walker earlier in the evening while passing through the crowd. If I had known he was telling people to be afraid of me, I would had asked him about it. Next year I will have a friend take a camera, and we will have a conversation. People can then determine if I am mean to even those anti-Mormons who disparage me personally. Not that I care what people judge about me. God knows my heart. But when one's living is based on attacking other people's faith, maybe telling a story about me is better than getting caught on video. Maybe I can help change that for Keith.
I have a brochure I created for Manti this year which focuses on several non-LDS scholars' statements around the reality of the Hebrew belief in real plural gods. It also discusses the mis-translation of John 1:1, which should say "and the Word was a god"(or words to the effect that the Word had the same nature as The God, but is a different member of that class of beings)and how the way most Christians interpret it actually make the verse a modalist or Sabellean heresy. Finally, it also provides extensive statements by early Christians that people can become gods, with a list of references to the concept in the Bible. If you would like a copy, send me your email as a comment. I won't post your address, I will just email you the brochure. No minimum donation required :-)
Friday night I had several very positive conversations with folks, and I circulated more. I was speaking with one gentleman from England when some guy name Jason walked up, listened for about 10 minutes or so, then started asking questions but not waiting for answers.
"Didn't Joseph Smith order Gov Boggs killed?" "Weren't the Mormons stealing land in Missouri, so they were not really victims?" "Didn't having a standing militia violate federal law?" "Didn't Joseph print his own money and steal the real currency?" "Isn't that illegal?"
These questions, and potential exchange, looks easy on the surface. You think, he is asking a question, he wants an answer.
Truth is, Jason was giving his answer in the form of a question, and did not care to hear my answer or response at all. He wanted me to answer yes or no, and if I disagreed with his conclusions, he called me deceptive. He eventually started in with personal insults ("You're a mile wide and an inch deep, aren't you?"), so I said to him I would not talk with ignorant insulting people, and turn away from him. What was helpful was he did this in front of two other gentlemen whom I had previously had excellent exchanges with, and they were embarrassed by their "Christian Brother's" behavior. I then apologized for calling the guy stupid, and then gave them the answers to the assertions:
1. Joseph did not order the Boggs assassination attempt. No evidence of it.
2. Porter Rockwell was a suspect, but he calmly stated that if he had wanted him dead, he'd be dead. A grand jury agreed, and Rockwell was never indicted. It is commonly believed the would-be assassin was a political rival, though he was never found.
3. I explained that the LDS had organized a protective force, consistent with the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution, under their right to keep and bear arms for self defense. However, the US Government refused to intervene, with President Martin Van Buren famously saying to Joseph Smith, to the effect, "Your cause is just, but I cannot help you." As we know, Joseph prophesied their government would be destroyed, and within 20 years the Whig party was, in fact, completely destroyed. The Republicans emerged, and the Whigs are now just an historical footnote.
4. Related to three, the 10th amendment to the US Constitution was the reason Van Buren could not intervene at the time. After the Civil War the Constitution was amended to allow far more Federal involvement in state issues. Keeping the peace and administering the domestic affairs of the states were seen as exclusively a state's rights issue at the time, and so Van Buren felt he could not take action. Having a standing militia, if in a state of insurrection, would have been a violation of federal law. Arming your people to defend against criminals is not. There was no violation of federal law, and they did not steal land from anyone.
5. The great depression of the late 1830's, which was brought on largely because the Gold Standard limited the amount of money which could be printed, thus limiting the velocity or circulation of money to create new capital, brought hundreds of communities around the country to create their own banking societies. As I mentioned to the guys in Manti, if you have ever seen the movie "It's a Wonderful Life", there is a scene where there is a run on the bank. Jimmy Stewart has people demanding their money. He explains that he cannot give it because it is in someone's home, or another person's business, etc. This is the concept of cash reserve ratios. If a bank takes in $100, but lends out $95, then if everyone comes in asking for their money, it is not in the bank, it is in assets and out in the community circulating. In Kirtland, they created a banking society. They basically issued IOU's to people, which everyone agreed to accept, in exchange for some cash deposits so they could meet the "hard currency" requirements they all would have. It worked great, until hard currency reserves disappeared. In 1837, the year the Kirtland Bank failed, the US entered a 5 year depression where nearly half of all banks failed, and many other similar banking societies as Kirtland also failed. The crazy land price increases collapsed, so the assets underlying the notes disappeared. Not good for anyone. Joseph left, but I have seen research which shows eventually all were repaid. Joseph left Kirtland with his 6-month pregnant wife the first week of January 1838. It took two months, two winter months, with nearly no money, to get to Missouri. Far from living a rich life, Joseph and Emma suffered too.
6. Finally, was it illegal. Yes, it was. Joseph paid a $1,000 fine for setting it up. But it was also common, as the lack of currency was a problem everywhere on the frontier. It also failed because of the lack of trust and cooperation between members of the Kirtland Safety Society, and under captitalization.
History is not simple, and it is not black and white. If we believe that all Presidents of the LDS Church are always inspired, then we will always be disappointed. They were looking for solutions. At times they felt inspired. Other times they just did their best. At all times they were human. Don't trust humans with your salvation, trust God. But you still have to work with humans for everything else.
Final point. I was walking to leave on the road from the food court to the pageant area. I saw a girl about 10 years old passing out brochures, so I stopped and handed her one of mine. She looked like she was being baited by a child molester. I didn't get it at first, and I laughingly said "If you are going to pass out brochures to the Mormons, why don't you take them too?" She backed away, and a pretty dark haired little girl, also about 10, very nervously said "We have been told not to talk to you." I said, "What? Why is that, because I can answer your questions?" She said no, her daddy had said I was not nice to Christians, and they should not speak with me. She was nervously shaking as she said that, so I said "who is your daddy?" She replied "Keith Walker." I said he was with some ministry, and by now three young men in their twenties had walked over, and they said "Evidence Ministries". I said I would love to talk with her daddy, that it is not true that I am mean to other Christians, and I had even done a short video about her daddy because he had some things wrong about the Mormons. She said she knew I knew him. I jokingly said to one of the Christians I had spoken with earlier in the week who was walking by, "Am I mean to Christians?" Which she just laughed about. The little girl walked away.
Funny thing is, I literally bumped into Keith Walker earlier in the evening while passing through the crowd. If I had known he was telling people to be afraid of me, I would had asked him about it. Next year I will have a friend take a camera, and we will have a conversation. People can then determine if I am mean to even those anti-Mormons who disparage me personally. Not that I care what people judge about me. God knows my heart. But when one's living is based on attacking other people's faith, maybe telling a story about me is better than getting caught on video. Maybe I can help change that for Keith.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Classic Endings to Hubris
OK, the recent exchange with the "anonymous" writer I suspect is over. We just received the following two responses:
Anonymous said...So, it starts off insulting. Somehow I am a bad person because I refuse to submit to his obvious superior spiritual endowments. So the obviously denigrating comment that he should "bow down because of [my] intelligence." Well, if that is what he normally does when he meets people who out work him to understand the Bible, OK, but keep it modest. I blush easily.
Bob,
There is an old saying in the south that we say when someone just doesn't get things. That saying is "bless your heart". Bob, bless your heart. Let me ask you a question. Do you want me to bow down to you because of your intelligence and because you will be a "god" someday? Do you want me to tell you how smart you are and that I wish I could be like you? Despite your education, you are a very foolish man when it comes to your knowledge in the Bible and faith.
I could care less how much greek you speak. I could care less about your mormon text that was inspired by a man that has no knowledge of Spiritual matters. What you speak about is of this world and not based on anything Spiritual. You are not knowledgeable in the Bible and I certainly trust what Ryrie says over your blasphemous beliefs because he is grounded in the Spirit. You my friend Bob, are just like the Pharisees Jesus is referring to in the Bible. Read Matthew 23:13-39. Woe unto you Bob.
You are prideful. You will not admit your wrongdoings. You keep mentioning the things I won't answer and I told you that if you were of the Spirit you would understand these things. But you are not, therefore you won't. Why won't you answer me about Galatians 1:8-9. Why won't you answer me about whether or not you sin. Bob, you are a sinner. There is NOTHING you can ever do to save yourself. You are an awful sinner. Works don't save. Not only are you a sinner, but I am too. I am just man enough to admit it because I believe I need Jesus and that He is Lord and that He saved me from my sins. He is all I need because I can't save myself.
You are a man with a hard heart Bob. Despite your claims of being smart, you are nothing but a fool to me. Your education will never impress me. The only thing you can do that will make me respect you is to put aside your heretical mormon texts, the ridiculous and unfulfilled doctrine and covenants, the so-called translated papryi of the book of Abraham, and read the New Testament to teach you about the real Jesus.
You are NOT a Christian. We need to make that clear. I have mentioned there is only one heaven and one hell and the only way to heaven is by accepting the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord, believing that He was raised from the dead, and working out this salvation. You must accept Grace, God's unmerited favor.
Face it Bob, your education is just like the Pharisees. You are to prideful to recognize who Jesus really is and because you have not received His Spirit, you are not able to discern these Spiritual matters. It is really sad. I feel sorry for you. But, I have not stopped praying for you.
I can't help but think that in a couple of weekends, I will be going to Eldorado, TX to visit some family. If you recall, there was a mormon temple built in Eldorado where these men practiced polygamy and married young women. These men were so-called prophets and said they received a "call" from your god. Explain to me, BOB, how these men are not a part of your false faith. Explain to me how they are not following "true mormon texts". Polygamy is in your doctrine and covenants and this is an outright heretical teaching. Warren Jeffs was a prophet, wasn't he? Don't you agree with what he believes because it is ALL in your mormon text?
Because of your educational background, it sounds like you like proof. Your ridiculous explanation regarding how the American Indians did not have any Jewish DNA was just laughable. Get over it Bob. Your religion is a farce and your founding father was a man that needed serious mental help.
You need Jesus. I will continue to pray for you and your hard heart. I really feel sorry for how out of touch with reality you are but anything is possible with God. Remember, the truth hurts, but the truth also sets you free.
6/12/2014 8:09 PM
Anonymous said...
Bob,
And by the way, there are NO modern day prophets. Your prophet within the mormon faith is a phony.
If you need someone else to start up another modern day religion, maybe you can become a pretend prophet yourself and profit from your propheting.
So let's recall that his original charges included that Mormons in general and me in particular don't understand the scriptures, and he cited several which he said supported his position. He was wrong, and as you can see for yourself, I was able to systematically dismember his position using only the finest academic sources, none of which are LDS.
This has resulted in another insult and illogical appeal to his own authority as the source for religious truth: "I could care less how much greek (sic) you speak... you are nothing but a fool to me."
So he asks why I won't admit I sin. I have, many times, including in these posts and responses. He asserts I claim that we can work our way into heaven. Sorry to let him know, but I have written extensively on that story line that it is impossible to save ourselves. We are saved through grace. It is impossible to be saved without grace from God. But, we have an obligation to be obedient. That is the obligation we have as recipients of Christ's grace. I quoted the definition of grace, (Greek Xaris) as found in the foremost Bible Lexicon, BDAG 3rd edition, and as I put into a response to his statements on May 31, 2014:
"Almost a technical term in the reciprocity-oriented world dominated by Hellenic influence as well as by the Semitic sense of social obligation expressed in the Hebrew term (checed, Strongs H2617). In the active sense, that which one grants to another, the action of one who volunteers to do something not otherwise obligatory. Especially of the beneficent intention of God. Compare secular writings of xaris to denote beneficent dispensations of the emperor: and of Christ who give (undeserved)to people; (from BDAG, page 1079, entry Xaris, 2 and 2a. These definitions include Eph 1:6ff, Rom 3:24, etc. In other words the commonly used passages to describe the Evangelical understanding of "grace".)So the LDS concept of grace coupled with obedience and repentance is the most Biblical approach compared to the practice of other faiths.
Now he asked why I would not respond to Galatians 1:8-9. I have before, but what the hey, let's do it again.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before , so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received , let him be accursed.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Trinity Troubles
Kind of a mini-theme at the moment, but discussing the Trinity is highly illustrative of the sheer avoidance followers of the Trinity display.
First, they will attempt to resort to the "historical" reality of the Trinity, and more broadly with the concept of monotheism in the Bible. Except this approach is logically and factually flawed on at least three levels:
1. Monotheism is not the historic understanding of the Bible or the New Testament in particular. As Trinitarian Michael Heiser wrote:
2. No single scripture or passage can be used to explain the relationship of the heavenly beings ("host of heaven", a phrase firmly built upon the Ugaritic terminology defining the Council of Gods, wherein Elohim presides) or relationship of Jesus and God the Father as being of one substance. By contrast, passages such as John 17 or Philippians 2:5-9, or especially John 1:1 are all clearly written to explain the relationship of Jesus and God, and from these passages there is no hint of some kind of sharing of essence.
3. It is impossible to maintain "monotheism" when the early Christian writers explicitly teach the salvation we seek is to become divine ourselves. Nearly without exception 2 Peter 1:4 is used by every early Christian writer, including the Father of the Trinity Athanasius, to state that men will become gods, just as Jesus was god and became man.
Secondly, the number of scriptures teaching the real existence of multiple real gods are so many as to be overwhelming. I looked up in a searchable online Strongs Concordance the following: "host/s of heaven"(20+), "Lord of hosts"(285), gods, in a real sense, not idols, (about 10), angel of the Lord, which was often a divine being (64), angel of God (10 times). Don't forget that Jesus himself is called an angel in Rev 10.
Of course, there is Deut 32:8, 43 where the text was plainly altered to attempt to conceal the fact there are the 70 sons of God, just as in the Ugaritic texts, given authority over the various areas of the Earth, and Jehovah is given Israel as his portion by the Most high God.
The proof of the lack of proof is the insertion of the bogus text of 1 John 5:7-8, which attempts to describe the workings of the Godhead in Trinitarian terms. Problem is it was added to the Latin text 250 years after John penned the words, and 1500 years later in the Greek.
So I would invite people to throw down their best two or three Trinitarian proof-text verses, and I will interact with them. But I will require they explain Deut 32:8-9, Ps 82/John 10:30-38 and John 1:1. No outside commentaries or sources, other than grammatical or lexical sources to accurately explain the text. I am sick to death of hearing the ignorant phrase "the passage must be examined in the broader context of the entire Bible." No, not so much. There was no compiled Bible until the 4th Century. The OT was much more fluid than it is today as well. And if we want to go to the "broader context", then Trinitarians can make this really short, because nearly all scholars of all beliefs, Christian, Catholoic, Jewish, Evangelical, atheist or Mormon, acknowledge the context of the Bible is for a form of henotheism, meaning many real gods, but only one to be worshiped, which is monolatry. Scholars such as Michael Heiser may argue about the nature of those gods in terms of how they came into existence, but there is no doubt the Hebrews and early Christians believed in a plurality of divine, meaning godly, beings. And we haven't even touched on the fact the Hebrews fully believed that God had a wife.
So send me some passages and be willing to interact a little bit. It will only hurt your Trinitarian pride.
First, they will attempt to resort to the "historical" reality of the Trinity, and more broadly with the concept of monotheism in the Bible. Except this approach is logically and factually flawed on at least three levels:
1. Monotheism is not the historic understanding of the Bible or the New Testament in particular. As Trinitarian Michael Heiser wrote:
Monotheism as it is currently understood means that no other gods exist. This term isLikewise, as we have demonstrated in the previous post and abundantly elsewhere, the existence of many real gods is taken as a given. Jesus and God the Father are immediate examples. But 1 Cor 8:5-6 or Acts 17:18 ("strange gods", Gk daimonion, a technical term used by the Greeks, here by philosophers to describe the relationship of Jesus to salvation and the resurrection, indicating their perception of Jesus as a second god as described by Paul), or Romans 8:16 make it clear that real, divine beings, plural, do exist and more will exist as mankind is saved. Jesus himself quotes Ps 82:6 in his preaching in John 10:30-38, referencing the OT teaching that men can become gods. His argument is only valid if they really do become gods like God, or else he is in fact guilty of blasphemy in his equating of himself with God.
inadequate for describing Israelite religion, but suggesting it be done away with would no doubt cause considerable consternation among certain parts of the academic community, not to mention the interested laity. Henotheism and monolatry, while perhaps better, are inadequate because they do not say enough about what the canonical writer believed. Israel was certainly monolatrous, but that term comments only on what Israel believed about the proper object of worship, not what it believed about Yahweh’s nature and attributes with respect to the other gods.
2. No single scripture or passage can be used to explain the relationship of the heavenly beings ("host of heaven", a phrase firmly built upon the Ugaritic terminology defining the Council of Gods, wherein Elohim presides) or relationship of Jesus and God the Father as being of one substance. By contrast, passages such as John 17 or Philippians 2:5-9, or especially John 1:1 are all clearly written to explain the relationship of Jesus and God, and from these passages there is no hint of some kind of sharing of essence.
3. It is impossible to maintain "monotheism" when the early Christian writers explicitly teach the salvation we seek is to become divine ourselves. Nearly without exception 2 Peter 1:4 is used by every early Christian writer, including the Father of the Trinity Athanasius, to state that men will become gods, just as Jesus was god and became man.
Secondly, the number of scriptures teaching the real existence of multiple real gods are so many as to be overwhelming. I looked up in a searchable online Strongs Concordance the following: "host/s of heaven"(20+), "Lord of hosts"(285), gods, in a real sense, not idols, (about 10), angel of the Lord, which was often a divine being (64), angel of God (10 times). Don't forget that Jesus himself is called an angel in Rev 10.
Of course, there is Deut 32:8, 43 where the text was plainly altered to attempt to conceal the fact there are the 70 sons of God, just as in the Ugaritic texts, given authority over the various areas of the Earth, and Jehovah is given Israel as his portion by the Most high God.
The proof of the lack of proof is the insertion of the bogus text of 1 John 5:7-8, which attempts to describe the workings of the Godhead in Trinitarian terms. Problem is it was added to the Latin text 250 years after John penned the words, and 1500 years later in the Greek.
So I would invite people to throw down their best two or three Trinitarian proof-text verses, and I will interact with them. But I will require they explain Deut 32:8-9, Ps 82/John 10:30-38 and John 1:1. No outside commentaries or sources, other than grammatical or lexical sources to accurately explain the text. I am sick to death of hearing the ignorant phrase "the passage must be examined in the broader context of the entire Bible." No, not so much. There was no compiled Bible until the 4th Century. The OT was much more fluid than it is today as well. And if we want to go to the "broader context", then Trinitarians can make this really short, because nearly all scholars of all beliefs, Christian, Catholoic, Jewish, Evangelical, atheist or Mormon, acknowledge the context of the Bible is for a form of henotheism, meaning many real gods, but only one to be worshiped, which is monolatry. Scholars such as Michael Heiser may argue about the nature of those gods in terms of how they came into existence, but there is no doubt the Hebrews and early Christians believed in a plurality of divine, meaning godly, beings. And we haven't even touched on the fact the Hebrews fully believed that God had a wife.
So send me some passages and be willing to interact a little bit. It will only hurt your Trinitarian pride.
Sunday, June 08, 2014
Retreads On the Godhead
I have been bombarded of late by questions from an anonymous individual who thinks he has discovered the true Christian theology in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity.
There is sort of a natural arrogance in the exuberance of youth, so I am not offended that anonymous thinks I am up in the night. I probably am about some stuff. But I am pretty sure about most of the stuff here.
I have written extensively on this blog in the past about issues such as salvation and the nature of God and Jesus and the Spirit. I have also written extensively about the nature of the Council of the Gods, and the historical fact that the Hebrew faith held as an orthodox view that there were many real gods, yet their God was the only one they worshipped.
This view is explained in great detail by the Evangelical scholar Michael Heiser at his website www.thedivinecouncil.com . He also has some amazing Youtube videos where he explains issues of ancient Hebrew belief. I also strongly recommend Mark Smith's The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, William Dever's Did God Have a Wife? (which the answer is "Yes"), Frank Moore Cross' seminal work Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, the anthology by Becking, et al, Only One God?, Raphael Patai's The Hebrew Godess, Hess' Israelite Religions, or for some light reading on this subject, the excellent abbreviated account by David Penchansky Twilight of the Gods: Polytheism in the Hebrew Bible. I happen to own all of these titles and have read them. None of them are LDS authors. Their conclusions, which once for Patai and other pioneers were considered left field and perplexing, are now squarely in the mainstream of Biblical scholarship. Coupled with the continuing archaeological finds and the various libraries of early writers from as long ago as 3,000 B.C., I can assert without fear that the Biblical narrative is far closer to an LDS document than an Evangelical tome. Everything from the nature of creation, which is now understood to not have been an "ex Nihilo" event (matter out of nothing), but rather that creation occurred using pre-existing materials; to the plurality and existence of real divine beings besides Elohim or Jehova; to the ultimate destiny of man, the very purpose of humanity's creation, is to become like God.
These are Mormon themes, which turn out to be Biblical fundamentals.
The fact is anonymous is well meaning yet ignorant of the Bible's teachings. When someone such as himself cites John 1:1 as proof that God and Jesus are one and the same being, I know he has neither studied the Biblical text in the original Greek language, nor has he sought out scholars who can correctly explain the text. He cites Charles Ryrie, an excellent Biblical scholar, for his systematic theology. Yet Ryrie's work fails to interact with both the historical issues of the Doctrine of the Trinity, or the textual problems of simple interpretations of passages like John 1:1, which he surely knew is not supportive of a Trinitarian view of scripture.
In November 2008 I went into detail on John 1:1. You can find it here. The verse describes the Word communing, in contact, in the presence of God, and having also the characteristics of God. So there are two gods present. I note there are dozens of translations which bear this out, and that scholars from Daniel Wallace, who teaches at Dallas Theological Seminary like Ryrie, and the Translators Handbook On the Gospel of John both affirm this idea. Wallace attempts to soften the blow and explain God is the Father in John 1:1, but it still fails to explain why John would say the Word was with God if he really meant the Father, since, by logical deduction, the same nature he is describing of God as the Father would be conveyed to the Word. You would be forced to conclude that the Word is the Father, if you are asserting God actually is intended to mean the Father. Neither solution really solves any Trinitarian issues.
On the other hand, the excellent work by Jason BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, dedicates chapter 11, pages 113 to 134 to a thorough discussion of the grammar and theological prejudice found in most translations. He demonstrates conclusively through examination of the use of "theos" (Gk: god) with both the definite article (ho theos, the god) and the far rarer use of the anarthrous (meaning without the definite article) nominative nouns. He employs the survey of the topic by Phillip Harner in his 1973 article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1" (Journal Of Biblical Literature, 1973, Vol 92 p. 85). After summarizing the 53 instances where John uses a predicate nominative construction, he notes Harner's conclusion that 40 of them are "qualitative", and writes: "In most of these cases a translator will be forced to choose wheher to use "the" or "a." It simply cannot be avoided. Harner does his best not to directly challenge "Colwell's Rule," but in the final analysis one must do so in order to communicate the qualitative sense Harner argues for to an English-speaking audience." (BeDuhn, pg 121)
Earlier BeDuhn notes: "In this subject ("nominative") form, the definite article is really indispensable for making the noun definite. Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos. This is fairly clear not only from the distinct forms the word takes, but also from the context in which those distinct forms are used. John says on the one hand that the Word "was with" ho theos, "God," but on the other hand that the Word "was" theos, "a god." It is striking, therefore, that most of the translations we are considering take no notice of this careful distinction, and translate the different words as if they were exactly the same." (BeDuhn, pg 115)
The quote from the Translator's Handbook On the Gospel of John, page 8, which is definitive in explaining this as well I just love:
Here is a clear statement of God and the Word being both divine, having the same characteristics, and yet being totally separate. The Word cannot be fully God as God is God, and be in association with him (kai theos en pros ton theon, and the word was with god) and there not be two beings present. Since "theos" is used as an adjective describing the class of beings to which "the Word" belongs, the Mormons are right.
Got that. The Mormons are right. It's a scripture thing, not just an opinion thing.
So far from being uninformed or a novice about the true understanding of the doctrine of God in the Bible, I deeply understand it. I came at it originally as a Trinitarian, btw, since I was raised as a Lutheran. The doctrine of the Trinity is just wrong.
I will hit more of anonymous' points as time permit. But I have put five or six hours into this post to make sure I have my documentation correct, and it is just easier for anonymous to spout off uninformed, poorly reasoned talking points he got from someone else than for me to answer them with an original post, when I have responded to most of his questions previously. If he would take the time to read before he attacks we could have a more focused discussion. But I don't want to leave the impression that these are somehow new or disturbing concepts.
He is so ignorant of the actual meaning of the text that he doesn't understand that the big sword he thinks he is wielding actually sliced off both of his arms and legs like a Monty Python script.
He can keep saying "It's just a flesh wound, come back I'll bite your legs off," but he has nothing.
The Mormons are right. [Cue coconuts clapping as we ride off.]
There is sort of a natural arrogance in the exuberance of youth, so I am not offended that anonymous thinks I am up in the night. I probably am about some stuff. But I am pretty sure about most of the stuff here.
I have written extensively on this blog in the past about issues such as salvation and the nature of God and Jesus and the Spirit. I have also written extensively about the nature of the Council of the Gods, and the historical fact that the Hebrew faith held as an orthodox view that there were many real gods, yet their God was the only one they worshipped.
This view is explained in great detail by the Evangelical scholar Michael Heiser at his website www.thedivinecouncil.com . He also has some amazing Youtube videos where he explains issues of ancient Hebrew belief. I also strongly recommend Mark Smith's The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, William Dever's Did God Have a Wife? (which the answer is "Yes"), Frank Moore Cross' seminal work Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, the anthology by Becking, et al, Only One God?, Raphael Patai's The Hebrew Godess, Hess' Israelite Religions, or for some light reading on this subject, the excellent abbreviated account by David Penchansky Twilight of the Gods: Polytheism in the Hebrew Bible. I happen to own all of these titles and have read them. None of them are LDS authors. Their conclusions, which once for Patai and other pioneers were considered left field and perplexing, are now squarely in the mainstream of Biblical scholarship. Coupled with the continuing archaeological finds and the various libraries of early writers from as long ago as 3,000 B.C., I can assert without fear that the Biblical narrative is far closer to an LDS document than an Evangelical tome. Everything from the nature of creation, which is now understood to not have been an "ex Nihilo" event (matter out of nothing), but rather that creation occurred using pre-existing materials; to the plurality and existence of real divine beings besides Elohim or Jehova; to the ultimate destiny of man, the very purpose of humanity's creation, is to become like God.
These are Mormon themes, which turn out to be Biblical fundamentals.
The fact is anonymous is well meaning yet ignorant of the Bible's teachings. When someone such as himself cites John 1:1 as proof that God and Jesus are one and the same being, I know he has neither studied the Biblical text in the original Greek language, nor has he sought out scholars who can correctly explain the text. He cites Charles Ryrie, an excellent Biblical scholar, for his systematic theology. Yet Ryrie's work fails to interact with both the historical issues of the Doctrine of the Trinity, or the textual problems of simple interpretations of passages like John 1:1, which he surely knew is not supportive of a Trinitarian view of scripture.
In November 2008 I went into detail on John 1:1. You can find it here. The verse describes the Word communing, in contact, in the presence of God, and having also the characteristics of God. So there are two gods present. I note there are dozens of translations which bear this out, and that scholars from Daniel Wallace, who teaches at Dallas Theological Seminary like Ryrie, and the Translators Handbook On the Gospel of John both affirm this idea. Wallace attempts to soften the blow and explain God is the Father in John 1:1, but it still fails to explain why John would say the Word was with God if he really meant the Father, since, by logical deduction, the same nature he is describing of God as the Father would be conveyed to the Word. You would be forced to conclude that the Word is the Father, if you are asserting God actually is intended to mean the Father. Neither solution really solves any Trinitarian issues.
On the other hand, the excellent work by Jason BeDuhn, Truth in Translation, dedicates chapter 11, pages 113 to 134 to a thorough discussion of the grammar and theological prejudice found in most translations. He demonstrates conclusively through examination of the use of "theos" (Gk: god) with both the definite article (ho theos, the god) and the far rarer use of the anarthrous (meaning without the definite article) nominative nouns. He employs the survey of the topic by Phillip Harner in his 1973 article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1" (Journal Of Biblical Literature, 1973, Vol 92 p. 85). After summarizing the 53 instances where John uses a predicate nominative construction, he notes Harner's conclusion that 40 of them are "qualitative", and writes: "In most of these cases a translator will be forced to choose wheher to use "the" or "a." It simply cannot be avoided. Harner does his best not to directly challenge "Colwell's Rule," but in the final analysis one must do so in order to communicate the qualitative sense Harner argues for to an English-speaking audience." (BeDuhn, pg 121)
Earlier BeDuhn notes: "In this subject ("nominative") form, the definite article is really indispensable for making the noun definite. Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos. This is fairly clear not only from the distinct forms the word takes, but also from the context in which those distinct forms are used. John says on the one hand that the Word "was with" ho theos, "God," but on the other hand that the Word "was" theos, "a god." It is striking, therefore, that most of the translations we are considering take no notice of this careful distinction, and translate the different words as if they were exactly the same." (BeDuhn, pg 115)
The quote from the Translator's Handbook On the Gospel of John, page 8, which is definitive in explaining this as well I just love:
He was the same as God appears in most translations as "the Word was God" (RSV, JB, NAB) NEB renders by "what God was, the Word was" and Mft "the Logos was divine" [Goodspeed (Gdsp) "the Word was divine"]. Zurcher Bibel (Zur) has "the Word was God," with a footnote indicating that this means the Word possessed a divine nature.This is a stake through the heart of the Trinity. In every instance where Trinitarians try to make a claim that "theos" is used without the definite article, it is not in the nominative position or it has a clear modifier. Nothing like the fake, made up Colwell's rule trying to explain away the grammar of John 1:1c.
These many differences in translation are due to the Greek sentence structure. In this type of equation sentence in Greek (A=B) the subject can be distinguished from the predicate by the fact that the subject has the article before it and the predicate does not. Since "God" does not have the article preceding it, "God" is clearly the predicate and "the Word" is the subject. This means that "God" is clearly here the equivalent of an adjective, and this fact justifies the rendering he (the Word) was the same as God. John is not saying that "the Word" was God the Father, but he is affirming that the same divine predication can be made of "the Word" as can be made of God the Father, and so "the Word can be spoken of as God in the same sense."(Underlining in the original, bolding mine.)
Here is a clear statement of God and the Word being both divine, having the same characteristics, and yet being totally separate. The Word cannot be fully God as God is God, and be in association with him (kai theos en pros ton theon, and the word was with god) and there not be two beings present. Since "theos" is used as an adjective describing the class of beings to which "the Word" belongs, the Mormons are right.
Got that. The Mormons are right. It's a scripture thing, not just an opinion thing.
So far from being uninformed or a novice about the true understanding of the doctrine of God in the Bible, I deeply understand it. I came at it originally as a Trinitarian, btw, since I was raised as a Lutheran. The doctrine of the Trinity is just wrong.
I will hit more of anonymous' points as time permit. But I have put five or six hours into this post to make sure I have my documentation correct, and it is just easier for anonymous to spout off uninformed, poorly reasoned talking points he got from someone else than for me to answer them with an original post, when I have responded to most of his questions previously. If he would take the time to read before he attacks we could have a more focused discussion. But I don't want to leave the impression that these are somehow new or disturbing concepts.
He is so ignorant of the actual meaning of the text that he doesn't understand that the big sword he thinks he is wielding actually sliced off both of his arms and legs like a Monty Python script.
He can keep saying "It's just a flesh wound, come back I'll bite your legs off," but he has nothing.
The Mormons are right. [Cue coconuts clapping as we ride off.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)