tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-114194682024-03-07T11:05:45.846-08:00LDeSsays.comAn Exercise in Practical Mormonism for Practicing Latter-day Saints.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1163862644573889182006-11-18T07:08:00.000-08:002018-03-05T22:12:29.501-08:00Our Favorite Quotes, part ii<br />
More from our series of great quotes we wish we'd thought of:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYvSZWFvjYdnzB-fnyBzQZUxn6-qGlDKwfogyFwEq8b2cEEokZEaUKODwyXPKkllZ4Fm0dmtNH5o-AXjqHWSxNtaZ0BKaW4cHjgWRSDCLpo2CjqwQuGDrrSTMxXW2l6845jhB7Zw/s1600/GW305H317.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="390" data-original-width="414" height="188" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYvSZWFvjYdnzB-fnyBzQZUxn6-qGlDKwfogyFwEq8b2cEEokZEaUKODwyXPKkllZ4Fm0dmtNH5o-AXjqHWSxNtaZ0BKaW4cHjgWRSDCLpo2CjqwQuGDrrSTMxXW2l6845jhB7Zw/s200/GW305H317.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>
<blockquote>
"To paraphrase the late comedian, Bill Hicks: 'Why would a Christian wear a cross around the neck to 'remember' Jesus? You think when Jesus comes back, he's gonna want to see a freaking cross!? <br />
<br />
That's like wearing a Manlicher-Carcano rifle pin on your lapel and going up to Jackie Kennedy...(tapping lapel)...'Just thinkin' about John, Jackie... just thinkin' about John.'" </blockquote>
<span class="fullpost">It comes from Hans, who <a href="http://www.jg-tc.com/articles/2006/11/15/features/religion/religion0001.txt#blogcomments">comments on a stupid response</a> to a question about Mormons and cross worship published this week in the <em>Journal Gazette </em>of Mattoon and Charleston Illinois.<br /><br />--<strong>The Practical Mormon</strong></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1159978185436486362006-10-04T09:01:00.000-07:002018-03-05T22:16:01.791-08:00Our Favorite Quotes, part i<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGHTX_6kavuLZ6Cr7GBC7ooa5Y2iWSA-sMFmxqFudpn8swf3BCAoqhQVO11N79cckE8j3wNT7GuGqjFkEkJNhRTmYU20O1zp2wUSae8P2t90ce7EytC24XmM38xGF-JMAMLQaoFw/s1600/GW305H317.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="244" data-original-width="185" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGHTX_6kavuLZ6Cr7GBC7ooa5Y2iWSA-sMFmxqFudpn8swf3BCAoqhQVO11N79cckE8j3wNT7GuGqjFkEkJNhRTmYU20O1zp2wUSae8P2t90ce7EytC24XmM38xGF-JMAMLQaoFw/s1600/GW305H317.jpg" /></a></div>
Who said it?<br />
<blockquote>
I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him...Let every man and woman know themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates or not. This has been my exhortation continually.</blockquote>
The answer:<span class="fullpost"> <strong>Brigham Young</strong>, "Eternal Punishment, 'Mormonism,' Etc.," <em>Journal of Discourses</em>, reported by G.D. Watt 12 January 1862, Vol. 9 (London: Latter-Day Saint's Book Depot, 1862), 150, as cited by Harold B. Lee, <em>Conference Report</em>, October 1950, 129-130. (Kudos to <a href="http://www.fairlds.org/Mormonism_201/m20118a.html">FAIR</a>.)<br /><br />--<strong>The Blindly Obedient Practical Mormon</strong></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1154356105116566012006-08-09T16:35:00.000-07:002018-03-05T22:21:44.019-08:00Shema Shema Bo Beema<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrk3Dkrf5nxi8HoxUa83-L_CbunwBTbtPJ9Tl9JPH2q7enx98Hst4sIwaJzL-mMhQb1zHX-mCZwqnNHG3UZAda5VsDik0DELT7SNqkK-2qWfRosckOsmUDPFbDeZeS-rwcSbIy_A/s1600/GW305H317.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="907" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrk3Dkrf5nxi8HoxUa83-L_CbunwBTbtPJ9Tl9JPH2q7enx98Hst4sIwaJzL-mMhQb1zHX-mCZwqnNHG3UZAda5VsDik0DELT7SNqkK-2qWfRosckOsmUDPFbDeZeS-rwcSbIy_A/s320/GW305H317.jpg" width="267" /></a></div>
<strong>Note bene</strong> (Latin for "Listen up, y'all"): The coincidence of the following four items may give you pause:<br />
<ul>
<li>Consider first, Judaism's most important prayer, the <a href="http://www.aish.com/literacy/mitzvahs/Shema_Yisrael.asp" target="win2">Shema Yisrael</a> (<em>"Hear, O Israel, the Lord God is One God."</em> <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/deut/6/4-9#4">Deut. 6:4-9</a> et. seq.) </li>
<li>Compare it to the <a href="http://ldessays.blogspot.com/2006/03/while-repeating-aloud-words.html" target="win2">prayer offered by Adam</a> at the altar. (<em>"O God, Hear the Words of My Mouth."</em> See <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/43/23#23" target="win2">D&C 43:23</a>)</li>
<li>Now contemplate the Savior's oblique reference to one or both of those prayers at<span class="fullpost"> <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/mark/12/29#29" target="win2">Mark 29:29</a> (<em>"And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord."</em>) </span></li>
<li><span class="fullpost">Finally, we commend unto you the profession of the <a href="http://ldessays.blogspot.com/2006/04/we-save-blake-ostler.html" target="win2">unity of God</a>, as related by Joseph Smith in the first vision (<em>"One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!"</em> <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/17#17" target="win2">JSH 1:17</a>)</span></li>
</ul>
This "hmmmmmm" moment brought to you by <strong>The Practical Mormon</strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1154365675696834152006-07-31T14:07:00.000-07:002018-03-05T22:34:43.797-08:00Romney's Niggardly Fox Paws<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6OxrhsUYJfxj_bC6bv3jbmL5LNqkP5nIgkt0RWaW46zrlr7o96YzJQyE2Qk5qJMDao0uvOqUK-X35pxBPxSvoiVV9t4ncIRiwn9A__pEM2jsV7y7e49100W2ydqNzNaA7Xi08gA/s1600/GW305H317.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="233" data-original-width="350" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6OxrhsUYJfxj_bC6bv3jbmL5LNqkP5nIgkt0RWaW46zrlr7o96YzJQyE2Qk5qJMDao0uvOqUK-X35pxBPxSvoiVV9t4ncIRiwn9A__pEM2jsV7y7e49100W2ydqNzNaA7Xi08gA/s320/GW305H317.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">If you'd read the story, you'd know a tar baby <br />is a fictional baby made out of sticky tar<br />to teach a rabbit a lesson. <br />Only a racist would think tar has anything to do with humans.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The commonwealth of Massachusetts, has engaged in niggardly budgeting practices that left pieces of highway falling on the heads of local <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/07/11/woman_killed_when_part_of_ceiling_falls_in_i_90_connector_tunnel/">commuters</a>. When Mitt Romney, the <u><strike>very white</strike></u> governor, commented that the circumstances forced him to take drastic action, though he'd prefer to wash his hands of this <a href="http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug97/remus/tar-baby.html">tar baby</a>, the neobigots at the Associated Press tarred him with the brush of <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/ROMNEY_RACIAL_REMARK?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-07-31-08-37-35">racism</a>.<br />
<br />
So let's call a spade a spade:<span class="fullpost"> If a man lives a life where he never encounters racism, it may never occur to him that a <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0826/p18s02-hfes.html">picnic with watermelon and fried chicken</a> is the modern equivalent of a lynching. To those of us who consider that all mankind shares the same spiritual DNA, and that race is an antiquated social construct, the blowback is puzzling. It's no longer honorable to be blind to race, or even to refuse to be racist. Neobigots -- those who benefit financially from raising up the dark spectre of racism -- now expect everyone to learn how bigots speak in order to avoid using words that sound vaguely like something in their English-to-Racist lexicon. </span><br />
<span class="fullpost"><br /></span>
<span class="fullpost">So study up, boys and girls. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_racial_slurs">Fill your head with racial slurs</a>, so that you never inadvertently use a word that sounds something LIKE a racial slur. (It's sort of like learning German in order to avoid accidentally sounding like a fascist, or learning Arabic so that you don't sound like a terrorist. Because that's not racist at <i>all</i>.)<br /><br />What a bunch of boobs. We like a robust debate, but this one just titillates. Damgummit. Now we're sexists.<br /><br />-- <strong>The Practical Mormon</strong></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1148764844713890742006-07-31T07:18:00.000-07:002018-03-05T22:36:55.463-08:00Ancient Rabbis Foretell Mormonism<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiCbM3lGbUM0KBRzgdv5Kx-oHletH-LUd8JH7irBxQLrUIOYn2chGegx4Yfw_63V44dgwcWfs_4PYBZbFiQhyphenhyphen1BjgcdDpRqU594sVLHAONbrNLBuZcOLNSlLR7UEKib5OI2ltOcg/s1600/GW305H317.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="202" data-original-width="249" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiCbM3lGbUM0KBRzgdv5Kx-oHletH-LUd8JH7irBxQLrUIOYn2chGegx4Yfw_63V44dgwcWfs_4PYBZbFiQhyphenhyphen1BjgcdDpRqU594sVLHAONbrNLBuZcOLNSlLR7UEKib5OI2ltOcg/s1600/GW305H317.jpg" /></a></div>
Y'all know what the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash" target="_blank">Midrash</a> is, yes?<br />
<br />
We think maybe someone oughta see this....So we're telling you, in the expectation that someone out there in the <a href="http://www.bloggernacle.org/">bloggernacle</a> will want to pursue it.<br />
<br />
Perusing <a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/">Sacred-Texts.com</a>, and reading in the Judaism section from <em>Tales and Maxims from the Midrash</em>, we ran across this:<span class="fullpost"> </span><br />
<blockquote>
<span class="fullpost">"The 'four carpenters' to whom the prophet [Zechariah] also refers, are Elijah, Melchizedek, the Messiah of war, called by some Messiah son of Joseph, and the true Messiah. These Messiahs are referred to in the 32nd chapter of Isaiah, and their existence is constantly mentioned. Seven or eight Messiahs are sometimes said to be promised in the words of the Prophet Micah (5. 5), 'Then shall we raise against him seven shepherds and eight principal men,' but it is held that there will be but four (Zech. 1. 20), and these are they: Elijah the Tishbite, an unnamed man of the tribe of Manasseh, Messiah of war--an Ephraimite, and Messiah the Great, the descendant of David.--Midr. Song of Songs 2."</span></blockquote>
<span class="fullpost">If we're reading that right, the five most significant prophets are Jesus Christ, Elijah, Melchizedek, Joseph son of Joseph (an Ephraimite), and an unnamed Manassehite.<br /><br />Perhaps this one?<br /><blockquote>
And Aminadi was a descendant of Nephi, who was the son of Lehi, who came out of the land of Jerusalem, who was a descendant of Manasseh, who was the son of Joseph who was sold into Egypt by the hands of his brethren. (Alma 10:3)</blockquote>
Are we radically off base?<br /><br />--<strong>The Practical Mormon</strong></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1154187294189296812006-07-29T08:18:00.000-07:002014-02-21T10:42:24.336-08:00Let's Smear the Jews<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/1600/jewish%20prayer2.jpg"><img alt="It's their fault. For standing in front of bullets." border="0" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/200/jewish%20prayer2.jpg" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; float: right; margin: 0 0 10px 10px;" /><strong></strong></a><a href="http://www.seattle.gov/police/Leadership/chief.htm">Gil</a>. Mayor of Seattle. Buddy. You anti-Semite bigot:<br />
<br />
Let us get this straight.<br />
<br />
Some self-proclaimed Muslim nutjob rides into town Friday afternoon, just before the start of <a href="http://www.jewfaq.org/shabbat.htm">Shabbat</a>, and starts mass shooting Jews. So <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/29/seattle.shooting/index.html">your response</a> is to put on extra guards to <span style="color: red;">protect <a href="http://www.idrismosque.com/mosqueinwashington.html#seattle">Islamic mosques</a> from "retaliation"?</span> <span class="fullpost">Would that be because our little <a href="http://www.seattlevaad.org/Synagogues.html">Jewish community in Seattle</a> has shown some proclivity to spend its Friday nights marauding?<br /><br />We're enraged on behalf of our <a href="http://www.jewishinseattle.org/jf/default.asp">Jewish neighbors</a>, who are too busy on Friday nights to be bothered responding to you.<br /><br />Here's an idea: Apologize to the Jews. And in light of the local Islamic community's <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003160600_muslim29m.html">It's-All-About-Me<small><sup>TM</sup></small> response</a> to this outrage, double the guard on both Jewish and <a href="http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/cgi-bin/pages.cgi?seattle">Christian holy sites</a>. We're just sayin'.<br /><br />--<strong>The Practical Mormon</strong></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1154011941252937022006-07-27T15:43:00.000-07:002018-03-05T22:41:21.572-08:00Wherein We Comprehend God -- Or Vice Versa<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8DVWV8NJTYdHBDJmVsFZSH2BOio9Opc2gi_gvzWFX29q80mQHZwe9XvORjGlG_QLL8fpFS8qK93PFKfx9wGJsBowZ9tsStqElHJr-d52PS4p-nok-fwebKatHFg9z6mdpDsLDQQ/s1600/GW305H317.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8DVWV8NJTYdHBDJmVsFZSH2BOio9Opc2gi_gvzWFX29q80mQHZwe9XvORjGlG_QLL8fpFS8qK93PFKfx9wGJsBowZ9tsStqElHJr-d52PS4p-nok-fwebKatHFg9z6mdpDsLDQQ/s1600/GW305H317.jpg" /></a></div>
Our correspondent asks:<br />
<blockquote>
Does our Father in heaven really hear our individual prayers? How does God hear everyone's prayers at the same time in different languages and then answer them? I don't think that he does. I believe that there are ministering angels who have the authority to answer prayers and intervene in our lives and then report back. If I'm way off on this, then maybe you could shed a little more light on this subject.</blockquote>
To which we replied:<br />
<br />
Dear Brother:<br />
<br />
I once had an experience I'll relate to you; perhaps it will shed some light on your question.<span class="fullpost"><br /><br />When I was 18 years old I was in a horrific car wreck. A friend and I were on our way to a Young Adults conference, and we encountered a drunk driver on the Interstate. Five cars, high speeds, and we were caught in the middle of the whole thing. The entire car was compacted to about half of its original size, and the only non-smashed places in the automobile were the two small spots where my passenger and I were sitting. But this isn't a story about a miraculous survival -- though I do happen to think it was miraculous.<br /><br />While my car was being totalled, I was completely aware of everything going on around me. It was as though all time came to a stop, and I was for an instant able to comprehend all things. I heard and saw the glass of the windows shattering around me, and for a brief moment I was aware of the individual pieces of glass -- tens of thousands of them -- and I knew where they all were, and where they were falling. I could sense the metal crumpling, and I knew how the car was absorbing the energy of the impact. I was aware of how everything was being destroyed. But all those pieces of glass! For that moment, I knew every one of them, all at once, and all individually, and was completely aware of what they were doing.<br /><br />Less than five seconds later, it was all over...but for that moment, I had this incredible experience of what it's actually like to comprehend all things. Astonishingly, nobody was seriously hurt. Neither my friend nor I were wearing seatbelts (and this was in the 70s -- pre-air-bag days) so I was pretty bruised, and she had a concussion and spent the night hospitalized for observation, but all the dozen or so people in the wreck essentially walked away from it. It was bizarre. <br /><br />So, to answer your question: Do I think God utilizes angels in a reporting system? There's no doctrinal reason why He wouldn't. Does Christ command us to pray to the Father? Yes, He does. And is God capable of hearing all of our individual prayers. I know He is. I know He is aware of everything that goes on in the Universe. All at once, all simultaneously, all in its own language. And not just individual human beings. Monkeys. Rocks. Blades of grass. And shattering glass. It all acts in obedience to God; it all "returns and reports." There's not anything that God doesn't comprehend -- and I mean "comprehend" in all of its definitions.<br /><br />--<strong>The Practical Mormon</strong></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1153934717788824752006-07-26T10:09:00.000-07:002006-07-27T07:03:53.673-07:00When We're 'N Sync, We're Happy, and We Sing As We Go...<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/1600/lancebass.0.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/200/lancebass.0.jpg" border="0" alt="Failed moon missionary Lance Bass"/></a><br />OK, so 'N Sync band member Lance Bass is happy. He's just come out of the happy closet. Here's the full quote: <blockquote>The thing is, I'm not ashamed - that's the one thing I want to say. I don't think it's wrong, I'm not devastated going through this. I'm more liberated and happy than I've been my whole life. I'm just happy. (<a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/entertainment/D8J3OOKG0.html">Seattle Times, 26 Jul 06</a>)</blockquote> Now this IS big news. Because after that whole<span class="fullpost"> <a href="http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/bass_conf_020829.html">astronaut fiasco</a>, we were a little worried Bass might be UNhappy. <br /><br />So rest easy tonight, America. Lance Bass, failed astronaut, is happy. <br /><br />-- <strong>The Practical Mormon</strong></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1153813273475097732006-07-25T23:15:00.000-07:002006-07-28T20:10:13.850-07:00False Doctrine Watch<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/1600/camelneedle.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/200/camelneedle.jpg" border="0" alt="It's a metaphor, dude." /></a>Your friendly neighborhood <strong>Practical Mormon</strong> is married to a wonderful spouse who isn't. Mormon, that is. So each week we (by which we mean <strong>The Practical Mormon</strong>) sit in meetings, breath bated, hoping nobody spouts false doctrine in front of our better half. Week after week we're disappointed.<br /><br />This week's offerings: <span class="fullpost"> <br /><br />* <strong>From the youth speaker</strong>: "I know that kids today have it a lot harder than kids did in the past." What? You broke your french-manicured nail on the Tivo button? This was the Pioneer-Day-themed meeting, so it's only natural that we'd be dissin' the orphaned kids who walked barefoot across the frozen plains after burying their parents. Right?<br /><br />* In the same vein, a <strong>bizarre political screed</strong> from the final speaker: "Our American forefathers weren't terrorists like the Arabs and Palestinians. They were fighting for freedom and for higher ideals. They were true patriots. Our forefathers, and the people who fought for our freedom, are the real heroes of blah blah blah." The PIONEERS. It's Pioneer Day! Remember them?<br /><br />* <strong>In Gospel Essentials</strong>: It was the Sacrifice lesson (#26). Teacher: "We should be willing to give up something to get something better in return." In response to which our spouse commented after class: "That's not sacrifice. That's investing. I'd gladly give up my '98 Honda tomorrow for an '05 model today."<br /><br />* <strong>From the teacher again</strong>: "Jesus said it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, but we know that in ancient times, the needle was..." We could keep quiet no longer. "<a href="http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2006/03/filtered_camels.html">Urban legend</a>," we barked. Thankfully, teacher back-pedaled and got back to the real lesson. But not for long.<br /><br />* <strong>From the missionaries</strong>: "Most people think the scriptures say 'Money is the root of all evil,' but if you look in the Joseph Smith Translation, you'll see that it says 'Love of money.'" We shook our head furiously at the missionary, who responded by actually looking up the scripture and discovering he was dead wrong. <br /><br />Sigh.<br /><br />Your friendly neighborhood <strong>Practical Mormon </strong>has our work cut out for us.<br /> </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1153776841477152852006-07-24T14:16:00.000-07:002006-07-24T14:59:08.523-07:00The Metaphysics of Mormonism<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/1600/GIRL1.0.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/200/GIRL1.0.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />So the bitty one, newly eight, asked: "How does God create things?" Playing Socrates, we asked back: You want the simple answer, or the answer that will make you smart? She picked B, so with input from her teenaged sister, we worked it out. It went something like this:<br /><br /><strong>The MoRabbi</strong>: The word "spirit" has several meanings. Can you name one?<span class="fullpost"><br /><br /><strong>L'il Bit</strong>: <font color=red>The Holy Ghost</font>. <br /><br /><strong>MoRabbi:</strong> Good. Next?<br /><br /><strong>L'il Bit:</strong> <font color=red>The Spirit in your body</font>.<br /><br /><strong>MR:</strong> You mean, your self?<br /><br /><strong>LB:</strong> Um, yes. <br /><br /><strong>MR:</strong> The Spirit in your body has two parts. Can you name them?<br /><br /><strong>Teenager:</strong> The Intelligence, and <font color=red>the spirit body</font>. <br /><br /><strong>MR:</strong> What's the Intelligence?<br /><br /><strong>Teenager:</strong> The eternal, uncreated part of you. Your individuality. <br /><br /><strong>MR:</strong> Can it be created or destroyed? <br /><br /><strong>TA:</strong> I don't think so. It's eternal. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/93/29-30#29">D&C 93:29-30</a>)<br /><br /><strong>MR:</strong> But it has a home, right?<br /><br /><strong>LB:</strong> Yes. It lives in the spirit body. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/3/18-19#18">Abraham 3:18-19</a>)<br /><br /><strong>MR:</strong> What does the Prophet Joseph say about the nature of spirit?<br /><br /><strong>TA:</strong> <font color=red>Spirit matter</font> is like physical matter, but it's more fine and pure, and can be discerned only with purer eyes. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/131/7#7">D&C 131:7</a>)<br /><br /><strong>L'il Bit:</strong> What does that mean?<br /><br /><strong>Teenager:</strong> It means you can only see a spirit with your spiritual eyes. You can't see it with your physical eyes. <br /><br /><strong>MoRabbi:</strong> What do we mean by "a spirit"?<br /><br /><strong>TeenAger:</strong> I guess, grammatically, you'd say "spirit." When we say "a spirit," we really mean "an intelligence, clothed with spirit." If your physical body is made up of physical matter, then your spiritual body is made up of spiritual matter. <br /><br /><strong>MR:</strong> So your spirit is the combination of your intelligence and your spirit body? <br /><br /><strong>L'il Bit:</strong> Yeah! <br /><br /><strong>MR:</strong> Yes, but that's probably not the best name, is it?<br /><br /><strong>TA:</strong> No, it's probably confusing to most people. They don't think about the difference between their Spirit and their spirit body. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/15/44#44">1 Cor. 15:44</a>)<br /><br /><strong>MR:</strong> Do we have a name for the Intelligence, combined with the Spirit body, combined with the Physical body?<br /><br /><strong>LB and TA together:</strong> <font color=red>The soul!</font> (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/88/15#15">D&C 88:15</a>)<br /><br /><strong>MR:</strong> Good job! So we have a collection of words that get used interchangeably in English, but should be distinguished from one another. <strong><font color=red>Those words are: The Spirit, a spirit, spirit matter, spirit body, and soul. I'm going to propose a solution to this confusion.</font></strong> Have you heard of Kaballah?<br /><br /><strong>TA:</strong> Yeah, it's that Madonna thing with the red string bracelets, right?<br /><br /><strong>MR:</strong> Sigh. No, that's a perversion of Kaballah. Real kaballah has a lot in common with Mormonism. I'm going to borrow some Hebrew words from the Kaballists so that we can differentiate those confusing words. Ready?<br /><br /><strong>Kids:</strong> Sure.<br /><br /><strong>MoRabbi at the whiteboard:</strong> Kaballah uses six words to describe six levels of "Soul Consciousness." They're pretty good words, and while we don't use them in exactly the same way that Kaballists do, the words are very helpful in explaining the plan of salvation. Here goes:<br />• The first word is <em>nefesh</em>, which we would compare to the Mormon-English word Intelligence. Kaballists use it to describe the lowest level of consciousness. <br />• The second word is <em>ruach</em>, which is comparable to the Spiritual Matter of <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/131/7#7">D&C 131:7</a>. Kaballists say that <em>ruach</em> is in divine service to God, and operates on the complementary emotions of love and awe of God. In other words, <em>ruach</em> might be said to be perfectly obedient to God, which corresponds exactly with the Mormon understanding of spirit matter. <br />• The third word is <em>neshama</em>, describing the combination of <em>nefesh</em> and <em>ruach</em> into an individual spirit. Kabbalists say the <em>neshama</em> is "the notion of coming into being from nothingness, rather than structured, quantified existence." <br />• A fourth word, <em>tzelem</em>, describes the mortal Soul -- the combination of intelligence, spirit and physical body -- in <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/88/15#15">D&C 88:15</a>. That's the word we use to describe our present state. Kabbalists say <em>tzelem</em> is "The soul enclothed within the body as a reflection of the Divine Form." <br />• The fifth word is <em>chaya</em>, which we could compare to the soul separated at death from its physical, mortal body. The Kabbalists say the primary activity of the level of <em>chaya</em> is to use intellectual comprehension in order to commune with God as He transcends the worlds.<br />• The sixth and final level, <em>yechida</em>, describes the spirit in its resurrected, immortal state living in the presence of God.<br /><br />There's one more Hebrew term you should know: <em>Ruach HaKodesh</em>, meaning The Holy Spirit, or the Holy Ghost, whom we call the Comforter.<br /><br /><strong>MR, setting down the markers:</strong> Now here's the part where you have to think. How did God create those <em>neshama</em>, those bodies of spirit housing the intelligence? <br /><br /><strong>TA:</strong> I think He must have called them into being. <br /><br /><strong>MR:</strong> Excellent. How did He do that?<br /><br /><strong>TA:</strong> Intelligence cleaves to intelligence (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/88/40#40">D&C 88:40</a>), and God is the highest intelligence (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/3/18-22#18">Abr. 3:18-22</a>). <br /><br /><strong>TA to little sister:</strong> It's almost like intelligence sticks to greater intelligence like magnetic filings stick to a magnet!<br /><br /><strong>MR:</strong> What else do we know about God and intelligence?<br /><br /><strong>TA, quoting:</strong> "The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth." (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/93/36#36">D&C 93:36</a>)<br /><br /><strong>MR:</strong> Meaning?<br /><br /><strong>TA:</strong> God must be God because He is the essence of truth and light.<br /><br /><strong>MR:</strong> What's the inverse of that?<br /><br /><strong>TA:</strong> Truth and light must engender God. <br /><br /><strong>LB:</strong> Huh?<br /><br /><strong>TA:</strong> It means God, truth, light and intelligence always go together.<br /><br /><strong>MR:</strong> How does the spirit get into the physical body?<br /><br /><strong>TA:</strong> It must be the same way as the Intelligence gets into the spirit body. Maybe the spirit is called into the physical body, just as Intelligence is called into the spiritual body. They can be separated, but it's not their natural or optimal condition. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/heb/4/12#12">Heb. 4:12</a>)<br /><br /><strong>LB:</strong> The intelligence goes into the spirit body because it's obedient, and because that's where it wants to go. The spirit body goes into the physical body for the same reason.<br /><br /><strong>MR:</strong> So do we have an idea now of how God creates things?<br /><br /><strong>Kidlets, chirping:</strong> Yes!<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1146141796283376672006-04-27T04:56:00.000-07:002014-02-21T10:27:13.393-08:00Sticking the Book of Mormon<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwrENJv9583Rjc1KPU7VZVAyVZXLW4nnml0OuyIeU0mnyg-F5QZ_Bng8qSxFax99J8VLypQ0u97yVf8ctkNKI5Abt7M5TNqXRBbiT2f-AHpkl48RvZk2HK7dleJnpS9P6pK2zGrw/s1600/torahscroll.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Torah! Torah! Torah!" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwrENJv9583Rjc1KPU7VZVAyVZXLW4nnml0OuyIeU0mnyg-F5QZ_Bng8qSxFax99J8VLypQ0u97yVf8ctkNKI5Abt7M5TNqXRBbiT2f-AHpkl48RvZk2HK7dleJnpS9P6pK2zGrw/s200/torahscroll.jpg" /></a></div>
So remember that time your seminary teacher carried on about the sticks and the scrolls and Ephraim and Judah? And remember when you and your teenaged friends started calling your scriptures your "sticks"? <br />
<br />
Turns out your teacher may have missed something. <span class="fullpost"> The word "Stick" in the following verses has some interesting etymology:</span><br />
<blockquote>
<span class="fullpost"><a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/ezek/37/16-20#16">Ezekiel 37:16-20</a></span><br />
<span class="fullpost">16 Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions:</span><br />
<span class="fullpost">17 And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand.</span><br />
<span class="fullpost">18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not shew us what thou meanest by these?</span><br />
<span class="fullpost">19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.</span><br />
<span class="fullpost">20 And the sticks whereon thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.</span></blockquote>
<span class="fullpost">Here, then, is <strong><span style="color: red;">The Least You Should Know About Sticks:</span></strong></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span class="fullpost"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn9G6pnlC5Wi3negW7MZdwMHg7vq9exTkYo0dfUY26kYgZosD_5bhjrgBvNhJ7kYSVf5iC297zp9EfRUde6EWxt1F9BPljEgMnirlKra6utgyGyXYdOks0-kDnnfvU39BCxWPguw/s1600/torahyad.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhn9G6pnlC5Wi3negW7MZdwMHg7vq9exTkYo0dfUY26kYgZosD_5bhjrgBvNhJ7kYSVf5iC297zp9EfRUde6EWxt1F9BPljEgMnirlKra6utgyGyXYdOks0-kDnnfvU39BCxWPguw/s200/torahyad.JPG" /></a></span></div>
<span class="fullpost"><br /><br />1. <strong>Torah Scrolls </strong>. Yes, they are rolled around a couple of sticks, or staves (<em>etz hayim</em> -- trees of life), just like your seminary teacher said. <br /><br />2. <strong>The <em>Yad</em></strong>. Nobody touches the scroll. Instead, whomever reads the Torah to the congregation follows the text using a pointer stick, a <em>yad</em> (hand). Pop Quiz: Where else have you seen someone using a pointer stick while explaining things to the assembled congregation?<br /><br />3. <strong>The Canon</strong>. The word <em>canon</em> (as in, a canon, or collection, of scripture) comes from the Latin <em>cann</em>, rule, and from the Greek <em>kann</em>, measuring rod, rule, stick. Try substituting the word "canon" for "stick" in the verses above, and see whether it makes more intuitive sense.<br /><br />So there you have it: Not one, but three, sticks with which to argue that the Book of Mormon was prophesied by Old Testament prophets. <br /><br />--<strong>The Practical Mormon</strong></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1144773352136585702006-04-11T09:34:00.000-07:002006-04-11T10:50:47.666-07:00We Save Blake OstlerGoogle cache to the rescue again, as Blake T. Ostler's <em>Re-vision-ing the Mormon Concept of Deity</em> is about to disappear from its former home at <a href="http://www.nd.edu/~rpotter/ostler_element1-1.html">www.nd.edu/~rpotter</a>. <br /><br />You may remember this one as: "The paper that guy wrote about Mormonism and Social Trinitarianism."<br /><br />So that it's not lost forever, here, for your reading pleasure and immense edification, is:<br /><br /><center><h3>Re-vision-ing the Mormon Concept of Deity<br />Blake T. Ostler</h3></center><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/1600/eggs.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/200/eggs.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>1. I want to focus on a concept in the Mormon scriptures that is rarely discussed -- the concept of <i>divinity-as-such</i>. This concept has been obscured in Mormon thought in part because of the emphasis on the distinctness of the divine persons. Mormons have focused on the distinct divine persons as separate, corporeal individuals to the almost complete exclusion of any notion that there is also an important sense in which God is one. <span class="fullpost">The <i>oneness</i> of God also has been obscured in part by a tendency to commit the logical fallacy of composition, assuming that the one God must have the same properties as the divine persons considered individually, and thus must be one in the same respects that God is three. The complaint that anyone who claims such a thing simply does not know how to count to three is probably well taken. However, the assumption that there is no way to make sense of God as one <i>something</i> and also as three <i>somethings</i> is mistaken. While there are severe logical problems with the classical formulations of the Trinity, I believe that Mormon scriptures provide a coherent and fully scriptural way to view God as three divine persons in one Godhead.<br /><br />2. The Mormon scriptures consistently present a view of three persons who are one God in virtue of a unity so profound that they are <i>one</i> and <i>in</i> each other. God <i>is</i> the relationship of intimate and inter-penetrating love in this sense. However, 'God' is ambiguous as to whether it refers to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as individuals or to them as a collective. To avoid confusion, I will adopt the convention of using the term Godhead to refer to the divine persons collectively. By 'divinity' I mean the fulness of the relationship of indwelling love among the Father, Son and Holy Ghost which gives rise to the emergent divine nature and in virtue of which these three are one God. By 'divine nature' I mean the set of properties essential to be divine. To put it less exactly, <i>divinity</i> is what makes a divine person <i>divine</i>.<br /><br />3. This view of divinity challenges at least two commonly held views regarding God in Mormon scripture. Some have argued that the Mormon scriptures before about 1835 adopt a <i>modalist</i> view of God, that is that the Father and the Son are identical but merely referred to by different names. Such a view of God would preclude this notion of divinity because it excludes the possibility of a real relationship between divine persons. The only possible relation on such a view is merely semantic, as the morning star is related to the evening star, which is to say, no real relation at all.<br /><br />4. On the other hand, the argument continues that after about 1835 the Mormon scriptures moved beyond the Sabellian heresy and adopt tri-theism or a plurality of gods. The divine persons are united merely in the sense that they are members of a common class of beings called 'gods' who have a common purpose. If tri-theism is true, then the view of divinity that I propose cannot be based on a relationship of indwelling unity and coinherence because the divine persons are related merely by falling under a common description or belonging to the same class. For example, it is like saying that all mortals are one humanity.<br /><br />5. I will challenge the notion that Mormon scriptures are either modalist or tri-theistic. Along the way, I will also suggest rejecting the view that God is a being who <i>became</i> God. I will argue that a more adequate and consistent understanding of God in Mormon scriptures is Social Trinitarianism. I will begin by pointing out some confusion regarding the word 'God'. I will then sketch briefly what the Mormon scriptures have to say about divinity. Then I will elucidate a theory which I believe best accounts for the scriptural materials. Finally, I will look at some theological implications of such a view.<br /><br />6. I add that I consider the scriptural texts as the ultimate test of adequacy for my views because I believe that theological theories ought to be drawn and elaborated from scriptural texts. There are a lot of different views about God current among Judeo-Christians in general and Mormons in particular. I believe that when the doctrine of God is divorced from scripture that the doctrine often tends to become idiosyncratic and individualistic in addition to becoming somewhat contrary to the interests of a sound theological basis for saving beliefs. The Mormon community has agreed to be bound only by the scriptures in all that they say, and not to any private interpretation or philosophical systems. <br><br /><br />A. <b>Two Logical Considerations.</b><br /><br />7. The history of interpretation of doctrine of the Trinity could accurately be described as a vacillation between modalism on the other hand, and tri-theism on the other. I believe that the classical doctrine of the Trinity does indeed suffer from either incoherence or the heresy of Sabellianism. I call this <i>the Trinitarian's Dilemma</i>.<br /><br /><i>(i) The Trinitarian's Dilemma.</i><br /><br />8. The classical doctrine of the Trinity has been stated most clearly and authoritatively by Augustine. Of the Trinity, Augustine stated: <br> <blockquote>There are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and each is God, and at the same time all are one God, and each of them is a full substance, and at the same time all are one substance. The Father is neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit; the Son is neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son. But the Father is the Father uniquely, the Son is the Son uniquely, and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit uniquely. <sup><font size=-1><a href="#footnote1">1</a></sup></font></blockquote>Augustine's claim regarding the relation of the divine persons to the one God entails the following: <blockquote>(1) There is exactly one God;<br />(2) The Father is God;<br />(3) The Son is God;<br />(4) The Father is not identical to the Son.</blockquote><br />9. From the foregoing premises it is apparent that acceptance of any three of these premises entails denial of the fourth. Premises 1, 2 and 3 entail that the Father and the Son are identical and thus the Sabellian heresy follows. The heresy claimed that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one identical being merely manifested in three different modes (thus also known as modalism). Premises 2, 3 and 4 entail bi-theism. There are two independent and separate persons, both of whom are Gods. Further, premises 1, 2 and 4 entail that the Son is not divine and thus reflect the Arian heresy which held that the Son is not divine in the same sense that the Father is divine. And from premises 1, 3 and 4 it follows that the Son is divine but the Father is not. The Gnostic heresy which rejected the God of the Old Testament but accepted Christ as divine thus follows. This inconsistent tetrad of premises poses a significant problem for classical Christians because each of them is affirmed by the tradition.<br /><br />10. Nevertheless, each of these claims seems to be essential not only to the classical tradition but to Mormonism as well. Nothing is clearer in Mormon scripture than the claim that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are (is) one God. It is a claim that is made constantly and consistently throughout all Mormon scripture. On the other hand, it is also clear that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are distinct persons in the fullest modern sense of the word person. Each of them has complete cognitive and conative faculties and is spatio-temporally distinct from the others in virtue of possessing a material form (as opposed to a glorified, resurrected body). It appears, at least on the face of it, that the Mormon scriptures embody an outright contradiction. <br /><br />11. The problem lies in the fact that there is no easy way to construe these assertions to avoid the problem. If 'is' in these propositions is understood as an identity statement then we cannot avoid modalism. Then we would be saying something logically equivalent to: 'Spencer Kimball is the author of <i>The Miracle of Forgiveness,</i> Spencer Kimball is the twelfth President of the Mormon Church, and Spencer Kimball is the Prophet to the Lamanites, but there are not three Spencer Kimballs but only one'. While this way of construing the propositions is clearly coherent, it entails the heresy of modalism. This is the way many claim we should understand references to the divine persons in Mormon scripture before about 1835.<br /><br />12. On the other hand, if we construe 'is' as an adjectival predicate for membership in a class then we commit the heresy of tri-theism. Such an interpretation is like saying that Joe Montana is a San Francisco 49'er, Steve Young is a San Francisco 49'er and Bart Oates is a San Francisco 49'er, but there are not three San Francisco 49'er teams but only one. This way of construing the propositions is clearly coherent. However, it entails that there are three football players and not merely one. Although there is one team, the team is not really anything over and above the members of the team itself. The <i>team</i> as such has no reality of its own but only the reality of the team members. Many claim that this is the way that we should understand references to the divine persons in Mormon scripture after 1835.<br /><br />13. Thus, Mormon scriptures have been accused of playing on both sides of the road on this issue and falling into heresy on each side. Classical Christianity claims to adopt the middle of the road view which seems to be incoherent. Thus, on either side of the spectrum we have coherent views that are heresy and the middle view, trying to have it both ways, is literally unbelievable because it does not make a coherent claim. Now it is true that many people who take the middle position construe the classical view as holding that each of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are God and yet there are not Gods but one. This view has often been dignified with the terms 'paradox' or 'mystery'. But it appears to me there is nothing really paradoxical or mysterious about this claim that in God there both are and are not three persons. Unless we are willing to give up the most basic law of logic, the law of non-contradiction, then this middle view does not really constitute a claim at all because it simply denies what it also affirms. Thus, the middle view is neither a mystery nor a paradox but a logical mess and ought simply to be rejected.<br /><br /><i> (ii)</i> <i>The Fallacy of Composition.</i><br /><br />14. One point in this discussion is crystal clear: if God is one in the same sense that God is three, then the doctrine presented in scripture is incoherent. Thus, the only way to avoid the Trinitarians Dilemma is to recognize that 'God' is equivocal and means something different when it refers to the three persons as one God than when it refers to the three persons as individuals. However, this move has been resisted because it is feared that if 'God' can mean different things, then it can be argued that it means something different for the Father than for the Son. Thus, when it is asserted that the Father is God, it may be asserted that the Son is not <i>God</i> in the same sense. There is, of course, a long history of <i>subordinationism</i> based upon numerous scriptural texts which recognize that the Son is subordinate to the Father. Nevertheless, Mormons ought to be skittish about adopting any view that renders the Son as subordinate <i>in the sense that </i>the Son is somehow less divine than the Father because, like classical Christians, the Mormon scripture clearly insist that only an <i>infinite God</i> will suffice to bring about the atonement. (2 Nephi 9:7; Alma 34:10) The notion that the Son is <i>fully God</i> is more central to Mormon scripture than has been generally recognized.<br /><br />15. Nevertheless, the fact that the Son is subordinate to the Father <i>in an appropriate sense </i>does not necessarily entail that the Son is less divine than the Father. Further, the Mormon scriptures do not claim that the Son is <i>God</i> in a different sense then the Father; rather, they claim implicitly that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as <i>one God</i> occupy a different logical space than the divine persons individually considered. In my review of writings about the Mormon concept of God, it has been uniformly assumed that God in Mormon thought merely is a divine person and there is nothing further to be understood. For example, Sterling McMurrin understood the divine persons to be nominal particulars and insisted that Mormonism did not recognize universals. Thus, he argued that the Godhead simply is the various divine persons as particulars.<sup><font size=-1><a href="#footnote2">2</a></sup></font> I pick on McMurrin not because he is a bad example but because he is among the most philosophically sophisticated and careful writers to treat the subject.<br /><br />16. The failure to recognize this distinction between the properties of the divine persons considered individually and of the Godhead as a collective commits the fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition is committed whenever one assumes that the whole must have the same properties as each of its parts. Thus, this fallacy is committed when one claims that a large crowd of people must be a crowd of large people. The same fallacy is committed when one claims that anything consisting of oxygen and hydrogen must be a gas at room temperature. However, one molecule consisting of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen has very different properties than the constituent parts of the molecule considered separately. The properties of water are emergent from the molecular unity of hydrogen and oxygen. Thus, it is a basic confusion in thinking to assume that the Godhead must be understood to have the same properties as the divine persons considered individually.<br /><br />17. Suppose we try again, but avoid the fallacy of composition. Could saying that <i>God is three, distinct divine persons each of whom are a God but there is only one God</i> <i>and not three,</i>be like saying that there are three atoms but only one water molecule? If the entity is one that has emergent properties that arise from the unity of its several parts, then the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. On this view, we could say that the emergent properties of the Godhead as a unity of indwelling divine persons constitute their divinity. It is because the divine persons as one Godhead are more than the mere sum of their parts, to put it crudely, that 'God' means something different when referring to the three divine persons individually than when referring to them as one Godhead. When referring to the divine persons individually as 'God', it means that each possesses the properties essential to be divine in virtue of their participation in the Godhead. However, when we refer to the collective of divine persons as one God, the word functions differently and refers to divinity-as-such in which these three participate. Thus, there is a sense in which the divine persons are three Gods, and there a sense in which the three persons as a unity are one God, <i>but in different senses of the word 'God'.</i><br /><br /><b>B. Scriptual Considerations</b>.<br /><br />18. The scriptures point to an emergent property which unites the three distinct persons as one God and in virtue of which the divine persons are properly also called God individually. For Mormons, the biblical <i>locus classicus</i> for understanding the divine nature that is communicated from one divine person to another is John 17, the High Priestly prayer, wherein Christ prayed that the disciples "may be one as we are." (John 17:11) Christ pleaded with the Father that the disciples "may be one, as Thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us.... And the glory which Thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that Thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as Thou hast loved me." (John 17:21-23) The divine glory that is communicated to the disciples, and which makes them one even as the Father and the Son are one, is divinity-as-such. This same glory was possessed by the Son with the Father "before the foundation of the world." (John 17:5, 24) It is the same divine glory which the Son set aside when he left the pre-existence with the Father to become mortal and which he asked the Father to restore to him. (John 17:1-5)<br /><br />19. There are two primary sources for understanding the doctrine of divinity in Mormon scripture, the Book of Mormon and D&C 93. The Book of Mormon reflects the Johannine emphasis upon indwelling unity in individual distinction. The resurrected Christ in 3 Nephi speaks in the idiom of the gospel of John. This idiom bespeaks an indwelling intimacy of unity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost together with the disciples of Christ. Perhaps the best way to show this relationship is to put "oneness" texts side-by-side with "distinctness" texts from 3 Nephi:<br /><br /> <center><table BORDER COLS=2 WIDTH="100%" > <tr> <td><u>Oneness Texts</u></td> <td><u>Distinctness Texts</u></td> </tr> <tr> <td>The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one, and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one. (11:27)</td> <td> I have drunk of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me and have glorified the Father... in the which I have suffered the will of the Father from the beginning. (11:11)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me. (11:32) </td> <td>This is the doctrine that the Father hath given unto me... (11:32)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also. (11:35)</td> <td>I ascended to the Father (15:1)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>And thus the Father bear record of me, and theHoly Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father and I and the Holy Ghost are one. (11:36)</td> <td> This much did the Father command me...The Father hath commanded me to tell you ... I have received a commandment of the Father... (15:16, 19; 16:16)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>The Father and I are one (20:35)</td> <td>Now I go to my Father ... [Jesus] prayed unto the Father... I must go unto the Father (17:4, 15-18, 35)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>And now my Father, I pray unto thee for them, also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me,that I may be in them as Thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one. (19:23)</td> <td> I came into the world to the will of the Father because the Father sent me. (27:13)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>[T]hat I may be in them as Thou Father, art in me, that we may be one,<br />that I may be glorified in them. (19:29)</td> <td></td> </tr> </table></center><br /><br />20. The view that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in each other in virtue of mutual witnessing of each other, commissioning to do the will of the Father, and indwelling unity is presented with clarity in 3 Nephi. However, a distinction of wills and persons is also quite clearly elucidated. The Son is distinguished from the Father by a functional subordinationism. The Father sends the Son to do the Fathers will. Though the Son has a will of his own, he subordinates it to the Fathers will who is "greater than" him. (c.f., John 4:34; 14:2, 28; 17:24; 20:26). The words spoken by Jesus are not his words, but the words that the Father gives to him. Because the Son does the will of the Father, and the Holy Ghost does the will of both the Father and the Son, there is only one will expressed in actual function.<br /><br />21. It seems apparent that both 3 Nephi and the Gospel of John adopt the Hebrew notion of commissioning of an agent to act on behalf of God to reflect the relation between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. As Cornelius Plantinga, Jr. concluded with respect to the gospel of John:<br /> <blockquote>Yet this very superordination and subordination of wills that distinguish the three persons also unites them. For in fact, only one divine will is expressed that of the Father who sends the Son and who, with the Son, sends the Paraclete [Holy Spirit]. The sending idea itself, given the <i>sali(a)h</i> tradition of the Old Testament and rabbinic Judaism, suggest both that the one who sends is greater than the one sent, and also that the one sent is an almost perfect duplicate or representative of the sender.<sup><a href="#footnote3">3</a></sup></blockquote><br />It is particularly noteworthy that the Holy Ghost is recognized also as an agent having a distinct will and able to witness of the Father and Son as a distinct person who can satisfy the law of multiple witnesses. In these passages, the Holy Ghost is described as engaging in self-conscious personal acts. He communicates, thinks, acts, knows and is described with the personal pronoun 'he'. If the Holy Ghost were less than personal, or somehow identical with the Father and the Son, he could not fulfill the role as a separate witness competent to testify in a manner that satisfies this law of multiple witnesses. This recognition is significant because the Saints did not fully grasp the status of the Holy Ghost as a distinct divine <i>personage</i> for some time, as evidenced in the 1835 Lectures on Faith which present the Holy Ghost as the shared mind of the Father and the Son. The Holy Ghost was thus viewed as personal, in the sense of having cognitive faculties, but not as a <i>personage</i> or a distinct person in the modern sense of the word. However, the properties attributed to the Holy Ghost in 3 Nephi require a fully distinct agent who can testify of the Father and the Son as an independent witness. Because such functions require distinct consciousness, the Book of Mormon implies that the Holy Ghost is a distinct center of consciousness.<sup><a href="#footnote4">4</a></sup><br /><br />22. In 1832 Joseph Smith received a revelation of a text attributed to John -- either or both the Beloved and/or the Baptist. This revelation is now found in D&C 93. Once again, these scriptures initiate us into the Johannine world of divine intimacy. D&C 93 shows that just as Christ is God in virtue of his inwelling unity with the Father, so the Saints may become one with the Father and the Son through the Spirit <i>in one</i> another. It explains three key doctrines: (1) how the Father and the Son are one in the Spirit; (2) how Christ is both God and man; and (3) how humans become one in the Father and the Son and enjoy a fulness of joy.<br /><br />23. A second comparison is internal to D&C 93 itself. It explains how the Son becomes divine because the Father communicates to the Son a fulness of power, knowledge and presence. This same fulness of power, knowledge and presence is communicated to the Saints:<br /><br /> <table BORDER COLS=2 WIDTH="100%" > <tr> <td><b><u>The Son of God</u></b></td> <td> <b><u>The Sons of God</u></b></td> </tr> <tr> <td>I was in the beginning with the Father. (93:21) </td> <td>Ye were also in the beginning with the Father. (93:22)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>I am the Firstborn. (93:21)</td> <td>All who are begotten through me ... are the Church of the Firstborn. (93:20)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>and he received not of the fulness at first; but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness. (93:13)</td> <td>If ye keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness ... Ye shall receive grace for grace. (93:20)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.... (93:3) And the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him. (93:17)</td> <td>You shall... be glorified in me as I am inthe Father. (93:20)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>And he received a fulness of truth, yea, even all truth. (93:26)</td> <td> He that keepeth the commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is<br />glorified in truth and knoweth all things. (93:28)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>He received all power both in heaven and on earth. (93:17) </td> <td>Then shall they be gods because they shall have all power. (132:20)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at first. (93:14)</td> <td>Wherefore it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God. (76:58)</td> </tr> </table><br /><br />24. From the gospel of John and the Mormon scriptures, at least the following claims seem to made:<br /><br />(1) <b><u>Distinct Persons.</u></b> The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three distinct divine persons who are one Godhead in virtue of oneness of indwelling unity of presence, glory, and oneness of mind purpose, power and intent. Each of the three divine persons is a distinct person in the fullest modern sense of the word, having distinct cognitive and conative personality. Because each of these capacities requires a distinct consciousness, each divine person is a distinct center of self-consciousness.<br /><br />(2) <b><u>Loving Dependence and Ontological Independence.</u></b> The Son and the Holy Ghost are subordinate to the Father and dependent on their relationship of indwelling unity and love with the Father for their divinity, that is, the Father is the source or fount of divinity of the Son and Holy Ghost. If the oneness of the Son and/or Holy Ghost with the Father should cease, then so would their divinity. However, the Son and Holy Ghost do not depend upon the Father for their existence as individuals and thus each of the divine person has <i>de re</i> ontologically necessary existence. Further, although the Father does not depend for his divine status on the Son or Holy Ghost, nevertheless it is inconceivable that the Father should be God in isolation from them because God is literally the love of the divine persons for each other.<br /><br />(3) <b><u>Divinity.</u></b> Godhood or the divine nature is the immutable set of essential properties necessary to be divine. There is only one Godhood or divine essence in this sense. Each of the distinct divine persons shares this set of great-making properties which are severally necessary and jointly sufficient for their possessor to be divine. Each of the divine persons has this essence though none is simply identical with it.<br /><br />(4) <b><u>Indwelling Unity.</u></b> The unity of the divine persons falls short of identity but is much more intimate than merely belonging to the same class of individuals. There are distinct divine persons, but hardly separated or independent divine persons. In the divine life there is no alienation, isolation, insulation, secretiveness or aloneness. The divine persons exist in a unity that includes loving, inter-penetrating awareness of another who is also <i>in</i>one's self. The divine persons somehow spiritually extend their personal presence to dwell in each other and thus become "one" "in" each other. Thus, the divine persons <i>as one Godhead</i> logically cannot experience the alienation and separation that characterizes human existence.<br /><br />(5) <b><u>Monotheism.</u></b> These scriptures present a form of monotheism in the sense that it is appropriate to use the designator 'God' to refer to the Godhead as one emergent unity on a new level of existence and a different level of logical categories. The unity is so complete that each of the distinct divine persons has the same mind in the sense that what one divine person knows, all know as one; what one divine person wills, all will as one. The unity is so profound that there is only one power governing the universe instead of three, for what one divine person does, all do as one. There is a single state of affairs brought about by the divine persons acting as one almighty agency. Because the properties of all-encompassing power, knowledge and presence arise from and in dependence on the relationship of divine unity, it logically follows that necessarily the distinct divine persons cannot exercise power in isolation from one another. Therefore, it follows that there is necessarily only one sovereign of the universe.<br /><br />(6) <b><u>Apotheosis</u></b>. Humans may share the same divinity as the divine persons through grace by becoming one with the divine persons in the same sense that they are one with each other. However, humans are eternally subordinate to and dependent upon their relationship of loving unity with the divine persons for their status as <i>gods</i>. By acting as one with the Godhead, deified humans will share fully in the godly attributes of knowledge, power, and glory of God, but they will never be separately worthy of worship nor will they be the source of divinity for others.<br /><br />25. Now those who are familiar with recent developments in philosophical theology will recognize that this view of God has a lot in common with Social Trinitarianism, or the view that the three divine persons are distinct persons in the fullest modern sense of the word and yet are a single social unity that governs the universe. This view has enjoyed somewhat of a resurgence in recent philosophical theology.<sup><a href="#footnote5">5</a></sup> Those who espouse the notion of Social Trinitarianism claim two overriding virtues for it: it is fully scriptural and it is coherent, whereas the alternative <i>one-person</i>or tri-theistic models are not scriptural and the middle way, which the tradition apparently claims to espouse, is incoherent. These are considerable virtues in my book which strongly argue in favor of adopting the Social Trinity. For my purposes, perhaps the term 'Emergent Trinity' is more descriptive.<br /><br /><b>C. Re-Vision of the Concept of God.</b><br /><br />26. This view of the one God as an emergent Social Trinity requires a radical revision of some common assumptions about the Mormon concept of God. There will obviously be many implications that I cannot touch upon, but here I will mention only a few of them.<br /><br />27<b>.</b> <i>God's Necessary Existence</i><b>.</b> This view may seem objectionable because the Godhead has contingent existence, that is, the Godheads existence is dependent upon the love of the divine persons for one another and it is logically possible that they freely choose not to love one another. The tradition rejected any notion of distinct parts or composition in deity for fear that it would then be logically possible for God to fall apart from the inside, to put it crudely. The traditional answer to this concern was the doctrine of simplicity. The basic notion is that God cannot be de-composed in any sense because he is not composed of parts either materially or conceptually. Thus, at least since Augustine the classical tradition adopted the doctrine of divine simplicity, which holds roughly that each of Gods properties is identical with every one of his properties and his essence is his nature.<sup><a href="#footnote6">6</a></sup> Needless to say, this doctrine is very difficult, if not impossible, to square with the doctrine that the one God is three distinct persons.<sup><a href="#footnote7">7</a></sup><br /><br />28. However, this concern overlooks the fact that both the individual divine persons and the Godhead necessarily exist, but in different senses. Following Richard Swinburne, we can say that <i>x</i> has <i>ontologically necessary existence</i> if there is no cause, either active or passive, of xs everlasting existence. Such existence is not contingent or dependent on another. In contrast, we can say that <i>x</i> has <i>metaphysically necessary existence</i> if <i>x</i>s everlasting existence is inevitably caused (for a beginningless period), actively or passively, directly or indirectly, by an ontologically necessary being.<sup><a href="#footnote8">8</a></sup> Given these definitions, D&C 93 seems to contemplate that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as individuals each have <i>de re </i>ontologically necessary existence, that is, it is their nature to exist and they individually cannot fail to exist. The Father is the source of light and truth which is communicated to the Son through the Spirit of Truth. (D&C 93:8, 26-27) Gods attribute of intelligence, or "light of truth was not created or made, neither indeed can be." (D&C 93:29) By strict implication it follows that the divine persons must themselves have such ontologically necessary existence.<sup><a href="#footnote9">9</a></sup> However, it is also this same everlasting attribute which is shared by the divine persons and in virtue of which they are divine.<br /><br />29. The Godhead has metaphysically necessary existence. Because the relationship of love of the divine persons constitutes the divine persons as one Godhead, the everlasting existence of the Godhead must be contingent in some sense. Love is an activity and/or attitude which is freely chosen, and thus it is possible to freely choose not to love. It follows that the divine persons love each other contingently. Nevertheless, we can be certain that there always has been and always will be a Godhead. Because the divine persons are perfectly rational beings, it follows that they will always freely choose to relate to one another and sustain the loving relationship in existence. It would be irrational to reject the greatest good possible which consists in the loving relationship of indwelling intimacy among the divine persons. Therefore, it is certain that they will freely choose to love one another as one God. It is logically possible that the Godhead fail to exist if the divine persons freely choose to cease loving one another; but it is not practically possible. The Godhead therefore has metaphysically necessary existence.<br /><br />30. Further, the Godhead and divine persons are immutable in different respects. The Godhead necessarily possesses each of the properties of divinity <i>de dicto</i> because these properties cohere in and necessarily arise from the relationship of divine unity. The Godhead could not fail to have the properties of divinity and remain what it is. The Godhead is thus immutable with respect to the divine nature in this sense. On the other hand, the divine persons can fail to have the properties of divinity because the divine nature is contingent on the voluntary love of the divine persons for one another. Thus, while the steadfast character and personal essence or identity is essential to each of the divine persons, the properties of divinity are not. The divine persons could voluntarily <i>empty</i> themselves of divinity by freely choosing to leave the unity of indwelling existence which characterizes the divine life. However, no other being or force could somehow require a divine person to sever the unity and therefore destroy God because the three persons as one Godhead have maximal power.<sup><a href="#footnote10">10</a></sup> It is important to note that, given this understanding of divinity, there cannot be a greater being conceived to be actual than God as the divine persons united as one Godhead. God in this sense is necessarily unsurpassable by any other being. The divine power, knowledge and presence arise in dependence on and from this relationship of complete unity and love. The divine attributes of governing power over and knowledge of all things cannot be possessed outside the complete unity which characterizes the relationship between the community of divine persons.<sup><a href="#footnote11">11</a></sup> Thus, God as one Godhead cannot have any rivals. There are not many Lords of the universe, even though there are many divine persons. It is the community, collective or divine persons-as-one-God, who necessarily agree as one, that has the ultimate authority and power.<sup><a href="#footnote12">12</a></sup><br /><br />31. God as a community of divine persons is the greatest conceivable love. Their united love gives rise to an incommensurable joy. Further, this loving relationship has been extended to mere mortals. Thus, God is omni-benevolent. This love gives rise to life and glory on a new level of supreme existence which proceeds from God's presence to fill the immensity of space like light from the sun fills the solar system. (D&C 886-13) This light which proceeds from the one God's presence is the source of all biological life and natural laws which govern all things. (D&C 88:16-36) Thus, there can be no rivals to the one God because in this sense God comprehends all reality within the scope of his governing power, knowledge and love. The divine persons as-one-God enjoy life on a level of existence different from individuals. Though humans also have necessary existence, the level of existence of the Godhead is vastly different. The power, knowledge, and compassion of the one God are supreme. No individual being could consistently know more or have more efficacious power or even approach the type of knowledge, power and omnipresence possessed by the Godhead.<br /><br />32.<i> The Incarnation or Condescension of God.</i> There is one exception to the notion that the three divine persons will always rationally and freely choose to remain as one God -- and it is a profoundly Christian exception. If there were an overriding reason arising from the very love that united them, one of them could choose to make the ultimate sacrifice to leave the divine unity. The Godhead could unitedly decide that one of the divine persons must become human to provide atonement and salvation for humans. The only reason for leaving the Godhead is thus an overriding love for mere humans. This view of God thus entails an implicit kenotic christology. <i>Kenosis</i> is a form of the Greek word used in Philippians 2:6-11 which means "to empty." It states that Christ "who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God: but made himself of no reputation (the verb here means literally that he emptied himself of his divine glory), and took upon himself the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men." The notion is that the Son emptied himself of his divine glory to become human. The divine persons can <i>empty</i> themselves of the divine attributes by leaving the divine unity and becoming separated or alienated individuals. The gospel of John, Hebrews and Phillipians contemplate that this is exactly what Christ did when he became human. He emptied himself of his preexistent glory, left the intimate and indwelling relation with the Father and Holy Ghost, and became human. Thus a divine person could choose to become human because the divine persons as one Godhead cannot experience the isolation, alienation and alone-ness that are necessary to experience the essential alienation experienced by all humans. Thus, God must become man to fully understand and experience our pain and, through that understanding, provide at-one-ment to humans.<br /><br />33. Several persons (treating primarily the problem of self-referring indexicals of knowledge) have reached the conclusion that God, as an omniscient being<sup><a href="#footnote13">13</a></sup> could not have knowledge of particularity.<sup><a href="#footnote14">14</a></sup> It follows that to learn obedience from things which he suffered (Heb. 5:8), to be able to succor them that are tempted because He himself was tempted but did not sin, (Heb. 2:18), to be touched by out infirmities and to fully understand our alienation from God (Heb. 4:15), Christ as a divine person necessarily had to leave aside his divine glory, become as humans are in all respects, and cease for a time to be "one" "in" the Father and Holy Ghost as one God. There is a kind of perfection that comes only from immediate and personal experience. Prior to the incarnation, it was impossible for the Godhead to understand the essence of alienated human existence. Thus, Jesus truly had to grow and learn what it was like to be human.<sup><a href="#footnote15">15</a></sup><br /><br />34.<b> </b><i>Justification, Sanctification and Apotheosis by Grace</i>. This doctrine of divinity also entails a particular doctrine of grace. Those who are familiar with the "New Perspective" of Paul's doctrine of grace, first stated by E.P. Sanders and more recently by several others, will notice that this view of divinity entails a notion of <i>covenantal nomism</i>.<sup><a href="#footnote16">16</a></sup> The doctrine of grace in the New Perspective is multi-faceted, but briefly it holds that Paul taught that persons enter into a covenant relationship with God through grace alone, but once in the relationship one must abide the conditions of the covenant to remain <i>in Christ</i>. The conditions of the covenant for Paul included the law of love taught by Jesus. Further, in Pauls works grace is not seen as inconsistent with judgment and reward by works.<sup><a href="#footnote17">17</a></sup><br /><br />35. God offers the divine relationship to us as a sheer grace, an unmerited gift which is offered in unconditional love. We need not, indeed cannot, do anything to earn or merit this love. To attempt to earn the divine love is to demonstrate that we misunderstand what is offered and the unconditional nature of Gods love. Grace is the way that loving persons relate to one another. However, that God offers us love unconditionally does not mean that there are no conditions to abide in this love. We abide in the divine love by keeping the commandments. (John 15:9-10; 1 John 3:24) The commandments are simply two: to love God with all of our heart, might, mind and strength, and to love one another as we love ourselves. (1 John 3:24; John 15:16) The commandments merely outline the way we must act to avoid injuring the relationship of <i>covenant love</i> that God has offered to us. Thus, the relationship is the primary consideration protected by invoking obedience to commandments. There is no sense of earning the relationship by keeping the commandments. We keep the commandments to maintain our fidelity with God.<br /><br />36. As I have attempted to show elsewhere, this same view is essentially the view presented throughout Mormon scripture and in the gospel of John.<sup><a href="#footnote18">18</a></sup> In Mormon scripture, God offers light, or his own presence and glory, without condition as a sheer gift . This light reflects the quality of ones relationship with God, or the degree to which one appropriates Gods power and glory as the source of their lives in the here and now. However, one grows in the light or relationship by keeping the commandments. As D&C 93 states, one grows in the light by keeping the commandments until the perfect day when one is glorified with the divine knowledge, power and presence as "one" "in" the Father and Son, just as they are "one" "in" each other.<br /><br />37. The key to the doctrine of grace throughout the scriptures is that it consists in the offer of a covenant relationship with the divine persons in unconditional love. Persons are accepted as justified when they accept Christ as their Lord and agree to obey the covenant conditions. One is justified when one enters into the relationship, for acceptance into the relationship is justification. One has life<i> in Christ</i> as a result of entering the covenant relationship. Through faithfulness to the covenant conditions, one is thereafter sanctified in the sense that the Holy Ghost makes the person over in the image of God which was lost through the fall. Through sanctification, a person is made holy as God is holy. Through grace, persons are made "partakers of the divine" nature by being purified and becoming pure as He is pure. (1 Peter 1:13-22; 2 Peter 1:3-4; 1 John 3:1-2) Thus, the Mormon doctrine of divinity entails that divinity is humanity fully mature in the grace of Christ.<br /><br />38. The culmination of such a view of divine grace granting access to the divine relationship is thus <i>apotheosis</i>or deification of humans. Because humans become divine by entering the divine relationship as a sheer gift, they do not enjoy the same type of Godhood that characterizes the Father, Son and Holy Ghost who have such glory primordially from everlasting to everlasting.<br /><br /> <hr><b>D. Two Scriptural Objections.</b><br /><br />39. It may be objected that although this view of divinity is consistent or required by some scriptures, it is incompatible with others. In particular, it may be objected that this view is inconsistent with modalism expressed in the earliest Mormon scriptures and also with polytheism expressed in later Mormon scriptures. Due to time and space constraints, I cannot provide an exegesis of every Mormon text dealing with the relation of the divine persons to one another, their shared relation to the Godhead, and the relation of divinity to humans. Instead, I will focus on what I consider to be the key scriptures which form the trajectory for the trajectory of revelation about this relationship.<br /><br />40.<b> </b><i>Modalism or Distinction in Unity?</i> Those who adopt a modalist reading of Mormon scripture rely heavily on Mosiah 15 as a proof-text for their view. The focus of this scripture is to explain how Jesus Christ is both God and man. The primary issue is thus what we would now call <i>christology</i>. However, the explanation of Christs dual humanity/divinity is elucidated in terms of the Sons relation to the Father. Their are four key comparisons in Mosiah 15 that elucidate this relationship. First, "the flesh" is parallel to the "spirit." Second, the Son is identified with the flesh and the Father is identified with spirit; that is, possession of flesh is predicated only of the Son and the Father is identified with the spirit. Third, the Sons will is subordinated to, or "swallowed up in," the Fathers will as a result of the Sons death of the flesh. Finally, the Son <i>becomes</i> "the Father and the Son" whereas the Father already is the Father but never the Son.<br /><br />41. For purposes of exegesis, I will also introduce the principle of identity of indiscernibles. The importance of this logical principle is that any expression of the relation between the Father and the Son which can be termed <i>patripassionism</i> (i.e., that the Father suffers in the Sons suffering because the Father is identical to the Son) or modalism must satisfy this principle. Roughly this principle asserts that something is identical to another thing if and only if everything that is true of that something is also true of the other thing.<sup><a href="#footnote19">19</a></sup> For purposes of reviewing this scripture, I will present it in <i>parallelismus membrorum </i>form:<br /> <blockquote>God himself shall come down<br />among the children of men,<br />and shall redeem his people.<br /><br />And because he dwelleth in the flesh,<br />he shall be called the Son of God,<br />and having subjected to the flesh<br />to the will of the Father,<br />being the Father and the Son --<br /><br />The Father because he was conceived by the power of God;<br />and the Son because of the flesh;<br />thus becoming the Father and the Son --<br />And they are one God,<br />yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth.<br /><br />And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit,<br />or the Son to the Father,<br />being one God,<br />suffereth temptation....<br /><br />Yea, even so he shall be led,<br />crucified and slain,<br />the flesh becoming subject even unto death,<br />the will of the Son<br />being swallowed in the will of the Father.<br /><br />And thus God breaketh the bands of death,<br />giving the Son power to make intercession<br />for the children of men. (Mosiah 15:1-8)</blockquote><br />Now let's ask a few questions. How many wills are there among the divine persons? The answer seems fairly transparent. There are two. The Son has a will of his own but he subjects it to the Fathers will by undergoing death in furtherance of the Fathers will. How many wills are expressed in the Sons life? There is only one will functionally expressed because the Sons will is swallowed up in the Fathers will. Because the Father's will is <i>embodied,</i>so to speak, in the Son, the Son <i>becomes</i> both the Father and the Son. Will this scripture satisfy the principle of the identity of indiscernibles? Manifestly it will not because the Son has a number of properties that the Father does not have. The Son has a distinct will which is subjected to the Fathers will. Thus, the Son has the property of <i>having a will subjected to the Fathers will</i> and the Father does not. The Father gives power to the Son to make intercession, the Son thus has the property of <i>receiving power from the Father to make intercession</i> and the Father does not. The Son has the property of <i>being made flesh</i> and is called the Son because he possesses this property which the Father does not. The Son has the property of <i>being conceived by the power of the Father</i> and the Father does not. It follows that the Father and the Son are not identical although they are intimately united by a common will.<br /><br />42. Thus, there are two divine persons having distinct wills in this passage, the Father and the Son. However, there is only one God. The Father and the Son in relation to one another "are one God." It is of utmost importance to note that whenever the Mormon scriptures predicate oneness of God, it is <i>always, without exception, </i>a relationship of the Father and the Son, or the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to one another, and never a reference to just one of the divine persons. This usage can be compared to references to "one God" in the Old Testament which refer to a single divine person, Yahweh (Dt. 6:4), or in the New Testament where the Father is sometimes called the one God (1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6) or "the only true God" (John 17:3)<br /><br />43. There is another feature of this passage which is important to note. The Book of Mormon views possession of a body as a necessary condition for humans to experience suffering. (2 Nephi 2:15-25) Moreover, God is no exception to this general rule. It is true that the Book of Mormon views the Son as the God of the Old Testament who delivered the Law to the Israelites. (1 Ne. 19:7, 9-10; Alma 7:8-13; 3 Ne. 11:14; 15:5-9) It is the very God of Israel who is incarnated as the Son of God. However, the Book of Mormon is careful to specify that whenever the God of Israel suffers, he does so only "according to the flesh." (Alma 7:8-13, "the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh"). There are fifteen references in the Book of Mormon which predicate suffering of God, and all fifteen references are attributed to "the flesh" or to the Son of God as a mortal and <i>never</i> to the Father or God <i>simpliciter</i>. (1 Ne. 19:9; 2 Ne. 9:5, 21-22; Mosiah 3:7; 17:15, 18; 15:5; Alma 7:13; 33:22; Hel. 13:6; 14:20) The Son has the property of <i>suffering according to the flesh</i> and the Father does not.<br /><br />44. Moreover, the Book of Mormon refers to the Son as "the Father of heaven and earth" five times (Mos. 3:7; Mosiah 15:4; Alma 11:39-40; Ether 3:14-17). Each time that the Son is called the Father of heaven and earth it is always and only in the context of: (1) the Son becoming mortal and taking upon himself flesh, and (2) the Son as creator. For example, Mosiah 3:5-8 states that "he shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay .... [And shall] suffer temptations, pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer ... And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things ...." It seems to me that the best way to understand references to the Son as the "Father of heaven and earth" is that the Father's will has become embodied in the Son because the Son fulfills the Father's will by becoming enfleshed. This is exactly the conclusion of Mosiah 15:3 which states that the Son "becomes the Father and the Son" because he was conceived by the power of the Father and became flesh as the Son. Further, the Son is recognized as the Father's exact duplicate in creation of heaven and earth because he embodies the Father's will in such activities.<br /><br />45. There is of course a rival interpretation of this passage which attempts to square it with modalism. If I have properly grasped the view presented by those who argue for a modalist interpretation, they would suggest that in Mosiah 15 the divine person who is the Father is spirit and the same person became flesh as the Son.<sup><a href="#footnote20">20</a></sup> Thus, this one person is called both the Father and the Son because the Fathers spirit has entered flesh and become the Son, thus becoming both Father and Son. The Father has certain properties as a spirit before becoming mortal and then has other properties subsequently as flesh. For example, as a spirit the divine person who is called the Father cannot experience pain but when this same divine person takes upon himself flesh as the Son he is capable of experiencing pain. Thus, it may be argued that the incompatible properties refer to successive states of being of the same divine person.<br /><br />46. However, this interpretation cannot account for all of the aspects of this text. According to Abinadi, the Son as flesh has a distinct will which is "swallowed up" in the Fathers will as spirit. The Father has a will at the same time that the Son has his will. This modalist interpretation leads to the absurdity of saying that "the Father's will was swallowed up in his own will, but as the Son." This interpretation fails to recognize the distinction of wills presented in the text. It also leads to the absurdity of saying that "the Father gave himself power to make intercession." This interpretation fails to recognize the relational giving from Father to Son in the text. It also leads to the absurdity of saying that "the Father conceived himself." The Son has properties as flesh while at the same time, and not in a successive state, the Father has different properties. Thus, this interpretation seems to me to violate the principle of the indiscernibility of identicals and cannot account for the text in its totality.<br /><br />47. There is another compelling reason to reject the modalist interpretation of the Book of Mormon. It cannot be squared with other clear statements in the Book of Mormon, primarily in 3 Nephi, to the effect that the Son prayed to the Father, the Father sent the Son, the Son ascended to the Father and so forth. The culmination of the revelation of the relation between the Father and the Son is elucidated in 3 Nephi where the Son appears to the Nephites. As is appropriate given the inner logic of the Book of Mormon as a progressive revelation, the expression of oneness/threeness in 3 Nephi is much more clearly stated than in the prophets before Christ's self-revelation. The Book of Mormon presents the Nephites as not having fully understood the message of the prophets prior to Christ's appearance, and thus Christ undertakes to impart a fuller understanding to the Nephites. The inner logic of the Book of Mormon would suggest that as Israelites, the Nephites before Christs coming were concerned to preserve monotheism as understood in the Old Testament.<sup><a href="#footnote21">21</a></sup> Thus, the Nephite prophets prior to Christ's resurrection emphasized the unity of the Father and the Son. After the post-resurrection appearance of the Son, however, the plurality of the divine persons is much more prominent. Thus, Moroni can speak of praying to the Father in the name of "the Holy Child" (Moroni 8:3) and of the Son ascending to heaven to sit on the right hand of the Father. (Moroni 7:27; 9:26)<br /><br />48. Now even those who claim that the Book of Mormon presents a form of modalism or patripassionism recognize that what Christ reveals in 3 Nephi is not consistent with modalism. For instance, Dan Vogel admits that his interpretation of modalism leads to absurdities in 3 Nephi such as saying that "Jesus as the Father sent himself."<sup><a href="#footnote22">22</a></sup> However, he argues that there are two reasons we can ignore such absurdities when we interpret the Book of Mormon. First, he claims that passages evincing an identity between the Father and the Son are supposedly "more specific" than those in 3 Nephi and we should therefore read them to be consistent with modalism. Vogel gives no evidence to support this assertion. It is an argument consisting of nothing more than assertion. I disagree that such passages are more specific. The assertion that the Book of Mormon asserts an identity of Father and Son in the sense required of modalism is not accurate.<br /><br />49. Second, Vogel claims we can ignore the contrary evidence in 3 Nephi because those who adopted modalism in Christian history were certainly aware of similar passages in the gospel of John which were difficult to account for in their view, but that never stopped them from adopting modalism.<sup><a href="#footnote23">23</a></sup> That may be true but this argument simply begs the question. One could as easily argue that tri-theists were never convinced by statements of God's oneness, so the Book of Mormon is tri-theistic. This argument has the same logical structure as saying that we can ignore pictures from NASA taken by orbiting spacecraft as evidence that the earth is a sphere because members of the Flat Earth Society have seen those same pictures and they weren't convinced. Modalists never cited the Johannine passages to support their modalism. However, the Book of Mormon does express the relation between the Father and the Son in terms similar to the gospel of John which cannot be squared with modalism. The far better view, in my opinion, is a view which accounts for all of the evidence, not just the evidence that supports ones revisionary theory.<br /><br />50. In summary, the Book of Mormon views each of the three divine persons is individuated in the sense that they are not identical. Each of the divine persons is referred to individually as 'God'. The divine persons have distinct wills which implies that there are distinct centers of consciousness, knowledge, action and intentionality. The divine persons as a relationship of indwelling unity are "one Eternal God." (Alma 11:44) Their oneness consists in the indwelling unity of act, will, mind, mutual testifying, and love.<br /><br />51. Now I have not demonstrated that all Mormon scriptures before 1835 are incompatible with modalism. That would take a much more extensive and exhaustive exegesis than I can undertake here. However, I do believe that I have shown that a key text cited to support a modalist reading is inconsistent with modalism's essential claims and that Social Trinitarianism is more consistent with this particular passage and the view of the Book of Mormon as whole.<br /><br />52.<b> </b><i>Polytheism or Unity in Distinction?</i> It may also be claimed that the view of indwelling divinity that I have adopted is inconsistent both with polytheism in scriptures after 1835 and the notion that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are distinct personages, with the Father and the Son having "tangible bodies" of flesh and bone. (D&C 130:22) Let's deal with the second issue first. Why would one think that possessing a resurrected or glorified body of flesh and bone is inconsistent with the notion of three distinct persons who are united by their indwelling unity? Well, perhaps if we assume that there are merely three persons in three bodies and nothing more, then we have an inconsistency. After all, having tangible bodies would seem to entail that each of the divine personages is spatio-temporally distinct. Perhaps this could be taken to entail that they therefore cannot indwell in each other spatially. But I have already shown that the assumption that the Godhead must have the same properties as the divine persons considered individually commits the fallacy of composition. Unless it can be shown that the notion of having a glorified body is somehow inconsistent with the notion of emergent properties, the argument can't even get off the ground. If a glorified body can consistently be conceived to participate in the spirit of God that pervades in and through all things, and I see no reason why it cannot, then the notion that three tangible bodies may unite to form a greater whole is coherent.<br /><br />53. Of course it may also be argued that Joseph Smith somehow intended to replace the notion of three distinct persons united as one God with the idea that there are simply three Gods. But I see no evidence in the text that something of that nature was intended. Indeed, it seems much more reasonable to me to assume that Joseph Smith intended later revelations to be bound in the same volume with the earlier revelations and thus contemplated that they would be read <i>in pari materia</i> or in light of one another. Thus, there was no reason to restate the concept of divine unity that had already been revealed and published in the 1835 Book of Commandments. What was needed was a clarification that the divine persons are more distinct than the Saints previously understood.<br /><br />54. It has also been asserted that later Mormon scriptures adopt polytheism straight out. Polytheism is the view that there are a number of deities having distinct spheres of sovereignty. However, such an assertion is not sensitive to the way the word 'God' operates in Mormon scriptures. There are two senses in which the Mormon scriptures use 'gods' to refer to entities other than the Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost. Mormon scriptures sometimes call humans 'gods'. The Mormon scriptures also use the term 'gods' to refer to members of the divine council who are subordinate to the Eternal God. Neither of these usages is inconsistent with Social Trinitariansim.<br /><br />55. The notion of human <i>apotheosis </i>is not late in Mormon scripture, contrary to the claims made by Mormon critics. For example, the Book of Mormon already embodied the notion that humans could become "like God." For example, reflecting the language of 1 John 3:1-2, Moroni 7:48 states: "pray unto the Father with all the energy of your hear, that ye may be filled with his love ... that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we might have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure." 3 Nephi also consistently adopts Johannine language to teach that humans may be one just as the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one: "your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father, and the Father and I are one." (3 Nephi 28:10) These scriptures are perfect statements of Social Trinitarianism because they assert that the fulness of the Father is communicated to the Son. The same fulness is communicated to the Saints as one in the Father and the Son.<br /><br />56. An 1832 revelation known as the Vision calls humans 'gods' for the first time in Mormon scripture: "as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God." (D&C 76:58). However, this language merely reflects Psalm 82:6: "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." This same Psalm was quoted in the gospel of John in response the charge of blasphemy when Christ claims to be the Son of God who is one with the Father. (John 10:30-38) These scriptures probably assert only that humans are <i>gods</i> in the sense that they have been commanded to be holy as God is holy.<sup><a href="#footnote24">24</a></sup><br /><br />57. The only other scripture that calls humans 'gods' straight out is D&C 132, which states that: "Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue, then shall they be above all things because all things are subject to them. Then shall they be gods because they have power and the angels are subject unto them." (132:20) This scripture does not entail polytheism because humans are always subordinate to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and dependent on their relationship with them for their divinity. They are never pictured as separately worthy of worship. The Godhead has communicated to them the attributes of divine power, knowledge and presence Humans, as subordinate 'gods' are not independent rivals for worship in the sense required for polytheism.<br /><br />58. Finally, an 1839 revelation to Joseph Smith uses the word 'gods' to refer to heavenly beings who are members of the divine council. Mirroring references in the Old Testament to gods in the heavenly council (Dt. 10:17 and Ps. 136:2), D&C 121:28, 32 states that: "A time [shall] come in the which nothing will be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be made manifest ... according to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before the world was." Similarly, the Book of Abraham refers to God, apparently the Father, in the midst of the pre-earth council taking judgment concerning his plan for creation of this world. (B. of Abr. 3:23) God is also the sovereign Lord who summons emissaries of the divine council and sends them as agents. (B. of Abr. 3:24-27) The gods carry out the plan of creation as emissaries and agents of the Supreme God. (B. of Abr. Ch. 4) This picture reflects the concept of gods in the heavenly council found in the Psalms and Job. As Hans Joachim-Kraus observed:<br /> <blockquote>In the heavenly world Yahweh, enthroned as God and king, is surrounded by powers who honor, praise and serve him. Israel borrowed from the Canaanite-Syrian world the well- attested concept of a pantheon of gods and godlike beings who surround the supreme God, the ruler and monarch. In Psalm 29:1-2 the <i>bene elohim</i> ("sons of God") give honor to Yahweh. They are subordinate heavenly beings stripped of their power, who are totally dependent on Yahweh and no longer possess any independent divine nature. In Job and the Psalter, powers of this sort are called <i>bene elohim</i>, <i>elim, </i>or<i> qedushim</i> ("sons of God," "gods," and "holy ones," Job 1:6ff; Ps. 58:1; 8:5; 86:8) But Yahweh alone is the highest God (<i>Elyon</i>) and king.... In Psalm 82 we have a clear example of the idea of a council of gods, .... "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment." The "highest god" is the judge. The gods (<i>elohim</i>) are his attendants. They are witnesses in the forum which Yahweh rules alone, and in which he possesses judicial authority. We might term the <i>cheduth-el</i> "Yahweh's heavenly court." All of the gods and powers of the people are in his service.<sup><a href="#footnote25">25</a></sup></blockquote><br />59. It must be emphasized therefore that these gods in Mormon scripture are members of the divine council who are subordinate to the Eternal God and not <i>gods</i> in the same sense that the Father, or Eternal God, is <i>God</i>. Certainly they are not <i>gods</i> in the sense that the one Godhead is <i>God.</i> They are not the sovereign of the entire universe. They do not merit worship individually. They act only as emissaries or agents of the Eternal God. The Book of Abraham draws upon the Hebrew commissioning tradition that viewed the emissary, though acting as agent, as the exact duplicate and representative of the commissioning Most High. Such a view of subordinate heavenly beings who are called 'gods' because they exercise the divine function of judgment in council is not inconsistent with the Social Trinity as I have elucidated it. Finally, it could be argued that this view is simply inconsistent with Joseph Smiths later view of the Father is a subordinate deity to an eternal plurality of gods. I believe that such a position misunderstands Joseph Smith when his assertions are read in light of the scriptures. Let me explain why.<br /><br />62. I believe that Mormons commonly believe that God the Father <i>became</i> God through a process of moral development and eternal progression to Godhood. The corollary of this view is that there was a time before which God the Father was a god or divine. No Mormon scripture supports this view; rather, it is an inference from non-canonical statements made by Joseph Smith in the King Follett discourse and by President Lorenzo Snow, who coined the couplet: "as man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become." When the biblical scriptures say that God is <i>eternal,</i> they are usually translating the Hebrew '<i>olam</i> or the Greek <i>aioion. </i>However, both words are ambiguous. They can mean either an indefinite period of time, much like the English word aeon, or a time without beginning or end. These words decidedly do not mean that God is timeless in the sense that there is no temporal succession for God.<sup><a href="#footnote26">26</a></sup><br /><br />62. However, the problem is not so much the Bible as it is Mormon scripture. The Mormon scriptures say that "there is a God in heaven who is <i>infinite and eternal</i>, from <i>everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God</i>...." (D&C 20:17). "The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, <i>infinite and eternal, without end "</i>(D&C 20:28). When the term <i>eternal</i> is conjoined with <i>infinite</i> and from <i>everlasting to everlasting</i>, it is pretty clear that it means<i> without beginning or end.</i> The notion of infinity usually means unlimited, without bounds.<br /><br />63. There are other Mormon scriptures that are even clearer: "Behold I am the Lord God Almighty, and endless is my name; for I am <i>without beginning of days</i> or end of years; and is this not endless?" (Moses 1:3) "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity" (Mormon 8:8). Further, Joseph Smith stated in 1840 that: "I believe that God is eternal. That He had not (sic) beginning and can have no end. <i>Eternity means that which is without beginning or end."</i><sup><a href="#footnote27">27</a></sup> Given this clarification, it seems pretty clear to me that these scriptures mean that God has always been God in the same unchanging sense without beginning. Are the King Follett discourse and President Snows couplet simply inconsistent with scripture? It seems to me that there are several possibilities here.<br /><br />64. For purposes of clarity in this discussion I will need to make a few distinctions. The word 'God' is equivocal in Mormon thought, and in Christian thought in general, because it can have many different references. I suspect that most references in the New Testament to God refer solely to God the Father. However, when I speak of the divine persons individually, I will use the locutions 'the Father'<i>, </i>or 'Son', or 'Holy Ghost'. I will use the biblical term 'Godhead' to refer to these three individual divine persons as one God united in indwelling glory, power, dominion and love. I will use the term 'God' as an equivocal reference where it is unclear whether the reference is to one of the individual divine persons or to the Godhead. I will use the term 'god(s)' to refer to humans who become divine through atoning grace. I will use the term members of the heavenly council to refer to the gods who are subordinate emissaries of the divine council. Finally, I will use the non-scriptural term 'divine beings' to refer to the non-scriptural gods who supposedly existed as gods prior to the time the Father became a divine person. Now for my best crack at responding to this difficult question.<br /><br />65. The notion that there are divine beings who were gods prior to the time that the Father was God arises in part from a confusion regarding scriptural references to gods who are members of the heavenly council. These member of the heavenly council have sometimes been understood to be gods prior to the time that the Father was divine and through obedience to which the Father became divine. However, since these members of the divine council were in fact subordinate to the Father as the "Eternal God of all other gods," (D&C 121: 28, 32) such a view is logically precluded by Mormon scripture.<br /><br />66. One could understand the scriptural references to an "eternal God" to refer solely to God the Father as an individual divine person. One could take the position that when God says he is eternal and without beginning, he is referring merely to the personal existence of the Father as a beginningless spirit or intelligence and not to his <i>status </i>as a divine person.Thus, the Father has always existed as an individual without beginning, but he has not always been God. There was a time when the Father was not divine on this view. However, it need not imply that there were no divine beings prior to the time the Father became divine because, as I understand the implications drawn by Mormons such as Orson Pratt and B.H. Roberts, there is supposedly an infinite chain of divine beings who existed before the Father.<sup><a href="#footnote28">28</a></sup> It was obedience to these divine beings and their commandments by which the Father became divine on this view, as I understand it. The problem with this view is that it seems to contradict the scriptures that say that the Lord God Almighty is without beginning of days. It is also hard to square with the scriptures which assert that God is the same unchanging God from all eternity. It is inconsistent also with the understanding that the Father is the Eternal God of all other gods. Moreover, this position seems to contradict the view that it is a divine relationship of loving unity <i>with God the Father </i>that constitutes the source of divinity of the Son, the Holy Ghost and god(s). I believe that D&C 93 teaches that the Son is divine in virtue of his indwelling unity with the Father and that mortals become god(s) by becoming one just as are the Father and the Son. In this scripture, the Father is the <i>source or fount of divinity</i> of all other divine beings. If the Father is the source of divinity then it certainly seems inconsistent to assert that the Father became divine in dependence on some other divine beings, for then the Father is not the ultimate source of divinity. Thus, the view that the Father became divine in dependence on other divine beings and was not divine from all eternity is not scriptural and it seems to contradict both the uniquely Mormon scriptures and the Bible.<br /><br />67. On the other hand, one could understand 'God from all eternity to all eternity' to refer to the Godhead rather than to any of the individual divine persons separately. It is not true that if there has always been a Godhead that all of the divine persons constituting the Godhead have always been divine. Thus, when the scriptures say that "God is from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God," it means that the Godhead has always manifested all of the essential properties of Godhood (whatever they may be), but the individual divine persons may not have always possessed all of the properties of Godhood considered individually. In other words, there was a time when the Father took upon himself mortality just as there was time when the Son became mortal, but there was a Godhead before, during and after that time.<sup><a href="#footnote29">29</a></sup><br /><br />68. This latter view seems to be more consistent with the scriptures to me. Moreover, it need not entail that the Father <i>became</i> God after an eternity of not having ever been divine, or that there was a time before which the Father was not divine. Rather, when we say that "as man now is, God once was," it seems more consistent to say that just as the Son was divine before becoming mortal (and was in fact very God of the Old Testament),<sup><a href="#footnote30">30</a></sup> so also the Father was divine from all eternity without beginning before he became mortal. The scriptures assert that the Godhead is the same unchangeable and everlasting God from all eternity without beginning. References to "the same unchangeable God" in Mormon scripture often explicitly refer in context to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as one God.<sup><a href="#footnote31">31</a></sup> As noted, the Godhead has metaphysically necessary existence and is immutable in nature. The Mormon scriptures also say that although the Son was made flesh, he was an individual divine person prior to mortality from all eternity. It is often not certain whether scriptures or sermons refer to God the Father, or the Son as individual divine persons or to the Godhead. However, if the Son only does what he has seen the Father do before him, as Joseph Smith asserted in the King Follett discourse, then the Father was also divine before becoming mortal just as the Son was before being made flesh.<sup><a href="#footnote32">32</a></sup><br /><br /><br />69. For those who are offended by Joseph Smith's suggestion that God the Father was once incarnate, it should be noted that God the Son was undoubtedly once a man, and that did not compromise his divinity. Indeed, because it is logically impossible for the divine persons as one Godhead to experience alienation, and because first-hand experience of alienation is essential to fully understand the existential dimension of humanity, the Father also has an overriding reason to experience something like mortality. Thus, the Mormon doctrine of divinity suggests a reason for Joseph Smiths non-scriptural teachings in Nauvoo that the Father, at one time, experienced something like mortality and thereafter regained his divinity in the same way as the Son. However, this belief is a non-scriptural implication of theology that is not binding on Mormons, and thus remains as an option of belief rather than a defining belief of Mormonism.<br /><br /> <hr><br /><b>Notes</b><br /><br /><a NAME="footnote1"></a><sup>1 </sup><i>On Christian Doctrine I, 5, 5.</i> Elsewhere, Augustine stated: "The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit constitute a divine unity of one and the same substance in an indivisible equality. Therefore, there are not three Gods but one God; although the Father has begotten the Son and, therefore, he who is the Father is not the Son; and the Son was begotten by the Father and, therefore, he who is the Son is not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son." <i>De Trinitate, I, 7</i> in <i>N. Stephen McKenna</i>, Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Press of America, 1963).<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote2"></a>2 See Sterling M. McMurrin, <i>The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion </i>(Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1965), 17-18; 40-42. However, Orson Pratt attempted to elucidate a universal essence shared by all material beings or atoms of intelligence in virtue of which there was one God. His system reduced to monism. B.H. Roberts also attempted to state a doctrine of divine unity over against the individual divine persons that could be called the one God in the <i>Third Year of the Seventy's Course on Theology</i>.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote3"></a>3 <i>See</i> Plantinga, 26.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote4"></a><sup>4</sup> It bears noting that such personal distinctions are not limited to 3 Nephi. For 1 Nephi 12:18 states: "The word of the justice of the Eternal God, and the Messiah who is the Lamb of God, of whom the Holy Ghost beareth record."<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote5"></a>5 The foremost supporter of this view is Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., "Social Trinitarianism and Tritheism," in Ronald J. Feesntra and Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., <u>Trinity, Incarnation and Atonement </u>(Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 21-47; and "The Threeness/Oneness Problem of the Trinity," <u>Calvin Theological Journal </u>(23:1 (April 1998), 37-53. In addition to Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., the Social Trinity has been defined and defended by Stephen Layham, "Trithesim and Trinity," <i>Faith and Philosophy</i> 5:3 (July 1988), 291-8; Richard Swinburne, "Could There be More Than One God," <i>Faith and Philosophy</i>, 5:3 (July 1988, 225-41); and <i>The Christian God</i> (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1994), 170-92; David Brown <i>Trinitarian Personhood "</i>Individuality in Trinity, Incarnation and Atonement" in <u>Trinity, Incarnation and Atonement</u> 48-78; and <i>The Divine Trinity</i> (LaSalle, Ill: Open Court Publishing Co., 1985) C. 7; Jurgan Moltman, <i>The Trinity and the Kingdom of God</i>, (trans. M. Kohl London: SCM Press, 1981); Clark Pinnock, <i>Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit</i> (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1996) 21-48; Thomas V. Morse, <i>Our Idea of God</i>, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1991), 1974-84 and Timothy R. Bartell, "The Plight of the Relative Trinitarian," <i>Religious Studies</i> 24 (1988) 129-55.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote6"></a>6 The best explanation of this difficult doctrine is Thomas Aquinas' <i>Summa Theologicae</i> I, Q. 6; 28.2, 3; Ia 1 ad 3 et 37 1 ad 34.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote7"></a><sup>7</sup> Several persons have critiqued the attempt to reconcile the doctrine of the Trinity with the doctrine of divine simplicity or the claim that God is not composite in any sense but wholly without parts. See, Christopher Hughes, <i>On a Complex Theory of a Simple God </i>(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989), Thomas V. Morris, "Dependence and Simplicity," <i>International Journal for Philosophy of Religion</i> 23 (1988), 161-74; G. E. Hughes, "The Doctrine of the Trinity," <i>Sophia</i> II (1963), 1-11.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote8"></a><sup>8</sup> Richard Swinburne, <i>The Christian God</i> (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 146.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote9"></a><sup>9</sup> The existence of an attribute <i>x</i> strictly entails the existence of the bearer of that attribute; therefore, the necessary existence of the attribute of intelligence strictly implies the necessary existence of the bearer of that attribute, God. Gods everlasting existence is also asserted straight out throughout the Bible. "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed he earth and the world; even from everlasting (<i>olam</i>) to everlasting (<i>olam</i>) you were God." Ps. 90:2. "The everlasting God, Jehovah, (<i>olam YHWH</i>) the creator of the ends of the earth. Isaiah 40:28. For unseen things of Him for the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood of the things made, both his eternal (<i>aionios</i>) and Godhead (<i>theotes</i>)." Romans 1:20.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote10"></a><sup>10</sup> Because I believe that most traditional formulations of omnipotence are incoherent, I have adopted another term which I believe describes a coherent formulation of power. For purposes of this discussion, we may say that S has maximal power iff S is able at any time <i>t </i>to bring aboutany logically possible state of affairs consistent with Ss essential properties and also with all states of affairs that have already obtained in the actual world up to <i>t</i>.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote11"></a><sup>11</sup> C. Stephen Layman explains how power, love, and knowledge can be shared attributes of a community of divine persons in "Tritheism and Trinity," <i>Faith and Philosophy</i> 5:3 (July 1988), 291-8.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote12"></a><sup>12</sup> Richard Swinburne explains how three distinct divine persons can agree among themselves to avoid conflicts in "Could There Be More Than One God?" <i>Faith and Philosophy </i>5:3 (July 1988), 230-1. Joseph Smith's own view was that the three distinct persons of the Godhead entered into a covenant of love and planned the creation in unity. Moreover, these statements were made during his last sermons and demonstrates that he did not abandon the idea of a controlling Godhead in his later thought. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, <i>The Words of Joseph Smith</i> (Provo: Religious Studies Center, 1980), 366-9.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote13"></a><sup>13</sup> God must be understood to be omniscient in the sense that God knows all that it is possible for a being having Gods attributes to know, and not in the classical sense that God knows all true propositions..<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote14"></a><sup>14</sup> See for example, Gordon Knight, "The necessity of God incarnate," <i>International Journal for Philosophy of Religion</i> 43 (1998), 1-16; Henry Simoni, "Divine Passibility and the Problem of Radical Particularity: Does God Feel Your Pain?," <i>Religious Studies</i> 33 (1997), 327-47; and "Omniscience and the problem of radical particularity," <i>International Journal for Philosophy of Religion </i>42 (1997), 1-22.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote15"></a><sup>15</sup> I might add here that this view logically implies that the other divine persons, the Father and the Holy Ghost, might also have an overriding reason to become incarnated so that they can have first hand knowledge of human alienation as a necessary condition to complete unity and love.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote16"></a><sup>16</sup> E. P. Sanders, <i>Paul and Palestinian Judaism</i> (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), 236 et seq.; D. G. Dunn, "The New Perspective on Paul," <i>BJRL</i> 65 (1983), 95-122, and <i>Jesus, Paul and the Law: Studies in Mark and Galations</i> (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1990), 206-141; and <i>The Theology of Paul the Apostle</i> (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 334-389; D. B. Garlington, "The Obedience of Faith in the Letter to the Romans Part II: The Obedience of Faith and Judgment by Works," <i>Westminster Theological Journal </i>73 (Spring 1991), 73-91.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote17"></a><sup>17</sup> See J. M. Cambier, "Le judgment de touts les hommes par Dieu seul, selon la verite dans Rom. 2.1-3.20,"<i> Zeitschrift fue die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft </i>66 (1975), 187-213; N. M. Watson, "Justified by Faith, Judged by Works an Antimony?" <i>New Testament Studies</i> 29 (1983), 209-21.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote18"></a><sup>18</sup> See my, "The Concept of Grace in Mormon Thought," <i>Dialogue</i> 24:1 (Spring 1991), 57-84.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote19"></a>19 More technically, an object x is identical to an object y if and only if every property and only those properties possessed by x are also possessed by y and vice versa. For an x and andy y and any property P, if x is identical to y (x=y), then x has P iff y has P.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote20"></a><sup>20</sup> See Melodie Moench Charles, "The Book of Mormon Christology" in B. L. Metcalfe, ed., <i>New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology</i> (SLC: Signature Books, 1993), 81-114; Dan Vogel, "The Earliest Mormon Concept of God," in G. J. Bergera, ed., <i>Line Upon Line: Essays on Mormon Doctrine </i>(Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 989), 17-33.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote21"></a><sup>21</sup> This seems to be Amulek's concern in responding to Zeezrom's question as to whether there is more than one God in light of the fact that there is both the Father and the Son. (Alma 11:28-35) Amulek's answer is "no," there is not more than one God. Such an answer is completely accurate from the perspective of Social Trinitarianism, but needs further explanation. However, the further explanation is provided in the text itself. In response to the question, "is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?," Amulek answers: "Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth ... and he shall come into the world to the redeem his people...." (Alma 11:38-39) Thus, the Son is not merely identical to the Father; rather, he is the Father in a particular sense of sharing the creative and redemptive power. Amulek further explains that all persons will be judged before the bar "of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God." (Alma 11:44) Thus, the oneness is a relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as one God, and not of the Son <i>simpliciter</i>..<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote22"></a><sup>22</sup> See Dan Vogel, "The Earliest Mormon Concept of God" in <i>Line Upon Line, </i>Gary Bergera ed., (SLC: Signature Books, 1989), 24.<i> </i>Moench Charles also admits that the modalist interpretation of the Book of Mormon is not apt in every instance ... often the evidence is ambiguous as in 3 Nephi, where the resurrected Christ on earth among the Nephites talks as if he is his Fathers subordinate. "Book of Mormon Christology,"100-101.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote23"></a><sup>23</sup> Id. Moench, Charles adopts Vogel's argument. "Book of Mormon Christology," 100.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote24"></a><sup>24</sup> See, Jerome H. Neyrey, "I Said You Are Gods," <i>Journal of Biblical Literature</i> 108:4 (Winter 1989), 647-63.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote25"></a>25 <i>Theology of the Psalms</i> (London: SPCK, 1986), 48.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote26"></a><sup>26</sup> Ernst Jenni, "Das Wort <i>olam</i> im Alten Testament," <i>Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft</i> 64 (1952), 197-248; and 65 (1953), 1-35.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote27"></a><sup>27</sup> Lyndon Cook and Andrew Ehat, <i>The Words of Joseph Smith</i> (Provo: Religious Studies Center, 1984), 33.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote28"></a><sup>28</sup> I have discussed the views of Orson Pratt, B.H. Roberts and others regarding the status of the divine beings in Blake T. Ostler, "The Idea of Preexistence in the Development of Mormon Thought," <i>Dialogue</i> 15:1 (Spring 1982), 59-78.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote29"></a>29 It should also be noted that a failure to distinguish between God as the Godhead and God as an individual divine person may also have led to a misunderstanding by evangelicals and others about Mormon claims that God is a glorified man and otherwise anthropomorphic. Mormons do <i>not</i> claim that the Godhead is a glorified man. Further, those evangelicals and other Christians who accept a kenotic theory of christology can hardly object to the view that God as a divine person has a glorified or resurrected body. As Ronald J. Feenstra observed: If the exalted Christ is human, then we have good reason to hope that we human beings can also be glorified in an eschatological existence, since it will follow that being human is compatible with being glorified. Both Lutheran and Reformed confessions have held that the ascended Christ retains his body.... If Christ is still embodied, he remains incarnate and therefore truly human. See Feenstra, "Reconsidering Kenotic Christology" in Ronald Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., <i>Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement</i> (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 147.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote30"></a>30 I note that there is no scriptural support for the view that Elohim is the proper name of the Father. Indeed, such use contradicts D&C 109 where Joseph Smith refers to Jehovah and Elohim interchangeably. Such usage could be adopted as a mere policy for purposes of keeping the divine persons distinct, but it also creates confusion regarding the identity of members of the Godhead. It must be recognized that no such usage is consistent in either the Bible or the Mormon scriptures.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote31"></a><sup>31</sup> This is the case in D&C 20:17, 28; Mosiah 15:2-5; Alma 11:44; Ether 12:41.<br /><br /><a NAME="footnote32"></a><sup>32</sup> In the King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith stated: "What did Jesus do, the same thing as I see the Father do..." Joseph Smith was quoting from John 5:19, which states, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son of Man can do nothing of himaelf, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these things doeth the Son likewise." Joseph Smith took this scripture literally, so that the Son does exactly what the Father did before him. See <i>The Words of Joseph Smith</i>, 345 & n.41.<br /><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1144193026915290092006-04-04T16:20:00.000-07:002006-04-04T16:57:22.926-07:00Cloning for Mormons<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/1600/ballerinas.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/200/ballerinas.jpg" border="0" alt="Meet Pete and Re-Pete" /></a>It's interesting to contemplate the ethical question of whether a cloned human would be the sibling of, the child of -- or even the same being as -- the clonee. <br /><br />More interesting is the question of whether -- being manmade -- a clone would even be human. <br /><br />Most interesting of all is the question of whether cloning disproves God. <br /><br />For Latter-day Saints, these are silly questions on many grounds:<br />• First, <font color=red><strong>people ain't their bodies.</strong></font> The spirit <em>animates</em> the body, and the spirit is individual. From a religious point of view, the body is so much ash and dust. It doesn't determine one's nature or one's humanity. <span class="fullpost"> Only the individual, eternal spirit self can make the decisions and choices that determine one's humanity.<br />• In terms of spirituality and individuality, there is <font color=red><strong>no difference between artificial cloning and natural cloning</strong></font> -- a relationship we call twins. We readily acknowledge that each of two twins born minutes apart are individuals. We even acknowledge that conjoined twins are individuals. It's remarkable that we then question whether each of two twins born 30 years apart are individuals. Surely they are, for they can choose individually and differently how they will live. Ironically, then, <strong>cloning may be the best evidence that man's spirit is individual and pre-existent</strong>.<br />• <font color=red><strong>A person who raises his or her clone is called a "parent."</strong></font> Family relationships are born of behavior, not of genetics. Parents and their natural children share genetic characteristics in degrees that vary from child to child. As any adoptive parent will attest, the quality or nature of the DNA is irrelevant to the parent/child relationship. If you do the work, you get the title. End of discussion.<br />• Finally, <font color=red><strong>there is only one valid argument against cloning</strong></font>: It's dangerous to children. The children of cloning are un-identical to their cloners, because cloned cells are degraded and aged forms of original cells. Giving a child something less than an optimal start -- when an optimal start is so easily accomplished -- is unethical. <br /><br />There oughta be a law. Really.<br /><br />-- <strong>The Practical Mormon</strong><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1143863508383730322006-03-31T19:37:00.000-08:002006-04-04T16:25:58.660-07:00While Repeating Aloud the Words...<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/1600/pale%20ale.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/200/pale%20ale.jpg" border="0" alt="Words of Wisdom?" /></a><strong>The Practical Mormon</strong> has been attempting to learn Aramaic. On the cheap. So we've been reading a "<a href="http://www.learnassyrian.com/aramaic/">Learn Aramaic</a>" site, and thought readers of a certain age might be interested in something we discovered.<br /><br />Aramaic has 29 letters -- and they all have "A is for Apple" sorts of mnemonics. Three letters and their mnemonics caught our attention:<br /><br />Peh -- POO-SHAAQ MI-L¡E -- dictionary/lexicon (<strong><em>Words</em></strong>)*<br />Lamadh -- LEE-SHAA-NAA -- tongue/language (<strong><em>Mouth</em></strong>). <br />Alep -- AA-SHOO-RREE -- Ashur/Assyrian God (<strong><em>God</em></strong> -- El, Allah, Eloi, Elohim all having the same root.)<br /><br /><span class="fullpost">Anyway, if it's interesting to you, there you go.<br /><br />*Intestingly, the Hebrew word for mouth -- <em>Peh</em> -- has etymological reference to the Aramaic.<br /><br />Enjoy!<br /><br />--<strong>The Practical Mormon</strong></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1142435622086986552006-03-19T07:58:00.000-08:002006-03-19T08:37:37.860-08:00The Bluffer's Guide to Being a Religious Intellectual<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/1600/Homer%20Scream.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; CURSOR: hand" alt="Oh my heck! A Mormon intellectual!" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/200/Homer%20Scream.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Annoy your bishop! Scare your spouse! Startle your Gospel-Doctrine classmates! Intimidate fundamentalists! Get love from the <a href="http://www.bloggernacle.org/" target="_blank" target="_blank">Bloggernacle</a>! You too can be a religious intellectual!<br /><br />Anyone can do it! Just pick a couple of words from the following list, and use them in your response to any question of theology.<br /><br />The key words and phrases are: <ul><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology" target="_blank" target="_blank"><strong>Eschatology</strong></a>. The study of end-times. Use it liberally in discussions about the apocalypse, the Millennium, or the plan of salvation. <em>Forms:</em> Eschatological, eschatologically. <em>Failing grade:</em> Mispronouncing it "Estachology." <em>Extra credit:</em> <a href="http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/Stoichiology" target="_blank" target="_blank"><strong>Stoechiology </strong></a>(also spelt "Stoichiology"). First elements, or first principles. Thus: The stoechiology of the gospel is: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ...<br /><li><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Theophany" target="_blank" target="_blank"><strong>Theophany</strong></a>. When God puts in an appearance. <em>Fun uses: </em>As a synonym for the First Vision. Or any other scriptural event where God exhibits a body part. <em>Disciplinary use: </em>Bearing public testimony of personal theophanies. <em>Extra credit: </em><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=8&q=Christophany" target="_blank" target="_blank"><strong>Christophany</strong></a>. Double extra credit: <strong>ThreeNephitophany</strong>.<br /><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism" target="_blank" target="_blank"><strong>Dispensationalism</strong></a>. The belief that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Or that God just keeps restorin' the gospel, and we just keep messin' it up again. (<a href="http://www.pogopossum.com/" target="_blank" target="_blank">Pogo</a>: "I give ya' books, <span class="fullpost" target="_blank" target="_blank"> and I give ya' books. And all you do is chew on the covers.") <em>Antonym:</em> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism" target="_blank" target="_blank"><strong>Supersessionism</strong></a>. The errant belief that every dispensation is a whole new doctrinal experiment, because God's bored with yesterday's Covenant People. In its extreme form, it's a divine permission slip to hate (or kill) a Jew, a Zoroastrian, a Gnostic, or a Catholic.<br /><li><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Agnostic" target="_blank" target="_blank"><strong>Agnostic</strong></a>. Intellectually useful only if you pronounce it "a-gnostic," as in: He hates knowledge. Or "He hates the Christian-y Essene Jews of Qumran whose <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism">Gnostic</a> doctrine, as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other apocryphal or pseudepigraphal works, was nearly indistinguishable from the more profound mysteries of Mormonism."<br /><li><a href="http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/historiography" target="_blank" target="_blank"><strong>Historiography</strong></a>. Cleverly affirm your faith in the historicity of the Book of Mormon by describing BOM commentaries (including the teacher's manual) as "historiographs." Praise John Sorenson as a "careful historiographer." Call Ed Decker's screeds "inept historiography." Be cautious, though. Overplay it, and you might just get yourself called as an early-morning seminary teacher.<br /><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype" target="_blank" target="_blank"><strong>Archetype</strong></a>. When those around you are using the terms "types" and "shadows," step it up a notch by quoting Jung on Christ as an archetype of the self. Then duck. Someone will -- quite properly -- throw a book at your head.<br /><li><a href="http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/Myth" target="_blank" target="_blank"><strong>Myth</strong></a>. Go ahead. Call the Garden of Eden or the Flood a myth. It is! Even if it's historical, it's still a myth, because a myth is an archetypal story passed down through generations. <em>Extra credit</em>: Correct someone who misuses the word "myth" to mean "<a href="http://www.snopes.com" target="_blank" target="_blank">fallacious urban legend</a>."<br /><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura" target="_blank" target="_blank"><strong>Sola Scriptura</strong></a>. The desperate and irrational belief that the scriptures define God, and not the other way around. It's what Protestants cling to in defense of their apostasy from Catholicism -- without acknowledging it was papal authority that canonized the Bible. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationist" target="_blank" target="_blank">Restorationists</a>, of course, are merely amused by the debate. And should say so whenever a <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/29/3-10#3" target="_blank" target="_blank">fundamentalist demands an explanation</a> of how Latter-day Saints dare have more scripture. In fact, ask 'em how they dare have less -- than the Catholics, that is. Unlike the Saints, who <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/91/1-6#1" target="_blank" target="_blank">ain't got a doctrinal problem</a> with lost books, Evangelical Fundamentalists <a href="http://www.carm.org/questions/lost_books.htm" target="_blank" target="_blank">can't quite figure what to think</a> about, oh, say, the seven Deutero-Canonical books of the <a href="http://www.drbo.org/" target="_blank" target="_blank">Catholic bible</a>, let alone the massive collection of <a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/index.htm" target="_blank" target="_blank">found books</a>, or the <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/bdl/lstbks" target="_blank" target="_blank">lost books referenced</a> in the Protestant bible itself.<br /><li><a href="http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861603571" target="_blank"><strong>Demagogue</strong></a>. OK, if you're reading this, you probably already use the noun form: a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power. So try using the verb form: manipulation through lies.<br /><li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiasmus" target="_blank" target="_blank"><strong>Hebraic Chiastic Structures</strong></a>. A particular poetical structure found in both the Hebrew scriptures and the Book of Mormon. (Jeff Lindsay has a fairly comprehensive overview at <a href="http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml" target="_blank" target="_blank">this site</a>.) It's especially effective when you <br />answer questions <br />about chiasmus to <br />use chiasmus to <br />answer questions.<br /><li><a href="http://www.bartleby.com/61/28/E0182800.html" target="_blank"><strong>Epistemology</strong></a>. A theory about how people know stuff. It's particularly useful in <a href="http://ldessays.blogspot.com/2006/02/wherein-we-define-word-testify.html" target="_blank">discussing testimonies</a>.<br /><li><strong>Dualistic Nature</strong>. If you were a bit more humble, of course, you'd say "dual nature." But where's the fun in that?<br /><li><a href="http://www.allwords.com/query.php?SearchType=3&Keyword=Amanuensis&goquery=Find+it%21&Language=ENG" target="_blank"><strong>Amanuensis</strong></a>. A three-dollar word for Oliver Cowdery. Or anyone else who took dictation while Joseph translated.<br /><li><strong>Cognitive Consistency</strong>. "Cognitive Dissonance" is so yesterday. Tell a fundamentalist that you're a Latter-day Saint because you're compelled by cognitive consistency. Watch 'em spin!<br /><li><a href="http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/amphibolic" target="_blank"><strong>Amphibolic</strong></a>. When you hear something you disagree with, raise your hand and ask, sweetly, "That issue is amphibolic, isn't it?" Long pause...."Capable of being interpreted in different ways."<br /><li><a href="http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861604550" target="_blank"><strong>Didactic</strong></a>. It means "annoyingly educational," of course, but in using the big word, you'll make your point a bit more subtly.<br /><li><a href="http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861717745" target="_blank"><strong>Syncretism</strong></a>. Smooshing together two or more beliefs. Telling kids they can't pass the sacrament because their priestly robes aren't <a href="http://faithprorumor.weblogs.us/archives/168" target="_blank">the correct shade of white</a>, for example.<br /><li><a href="http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861586301" target="_blank"><strong>Apotheosis</strong></a>. Scribble this one on the inside of your wrist, because it actually does double duty: It means either "deification" or "quintessence."</ul>Oh, your mother will be so proud!<br /><br />-- <strong>The Practical Mormon</strong></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1142483126781358822006-03-17T15:25:00.000-08:002006-03-17T15:44:02.126-08:00Noah, He Built Him, an Arky ArkyRock of Salvation asks: "<a href="http://rockofsalvation.blogspot.com/2006/03/noahs-ark-was-how-big.html" target="_blank">Noah's Ark was how big?</a>"<br /><br />So happens, we took a cruise a couple of weeks back. (Yup. To the <a href="http://www.whyprophets.com/prophets/ophir.htm" target="_blank">Yucatan</a>. Ostensibly, to inspect BOM lands. <br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/1600/Cruise%20186.0.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/200/Cruise%20186.jpg" border="0" alt="Armies of Helaman? Local Mayan kids on a field trip to ruins" /></a>Truthfully: To slop with the pigs at the endless buffet.)<br /><br />So we know whereof we speak when we consider feeding a shipful of animals.<br /><br />True facts about Royal Caribbean's <a href="http://www.royalcarib.com/rclfleet/rclsplendour.html" target="_blank">Splendour of the Seas</a>, the ship that took us to <a href="http://www.mayanbeachgarden.com/archaeology-BofM.html" target="_blank">Costa Maya/Kohunlich ruins</a> and <a href="http://www.mayanbeachgarden.com/Tulum.html" target="_blank">Playa del Carmen/Tulum ruins</a> on the <a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/1600/splendourmain.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/320/splendourmain.jpg" border="0" alt="Splendour of the Seas -- Double the Ark" /></a>Yucatan peninsula:<br /><br />Length: 867'<br />Beam: 105' (greatest width)<br />Decks: 9 full, 2 partial<br />Passenger capacity: 2,076<br />Crew size: About 800<br /><br />Roughly speaking, double the size of the ark. Freakin' big boat. <br /><br />But lions? Tigers? Bears? (Oh my!) Elephants? Giraffes? Moose? Horses? Buffalo? Bison? Mammoths? Zebras? Elk? Anacondas? Gazelles? Camels? Llamas? Gorillas? Ibix? Big Bird? <span class="fullpost"> <br /><br />And crammed into a space half the size of Splendour? <br /><br />I don't see it. Forget all the scientific arguments about the impossibility of a worldwide flood. I spent a week on a boat twice the size of Noah's. It wouldn't have held a medium-sized zoo for a month, let alone every bug and beastie on earth for an entire year. <br /><br />Gotta go with the "local flood, local beastiary" folk on this one.<br /><br />Besides, why would God -- creater of all life -- need Noah's help preserving <em>all </em>the fauna? <font color=red><strong>If God needed help, why didn't He ask Noah to preserve all the flora?</strong></font> Huh? Huh? God is and was perfectly capable of recreating what he'd once created. <br /><br />Clearly, the flood account -- like so many things recorded in scripture -- is there to make a larger point, not to stand as a refutation of science.<br /><br />Was Noah historical? Who's to say otherwise? It'd be supremely arrogant to assert that Noah was strictly an allegory without any historical foundation. But has the Noahic account always been interpreted accurately by modern readers? Doubtful. Seriously doubtful.<br /><br />-- <strong>The Practical Mormon</strong></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1142466170675952312006-03-15T15:42:00.000-08:002006-03-15T15:53:03.116-08:00Today at Dennys: Three dead, 37 spared<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/1600/dennys.0.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/200/dennys.0.jpg" border="0" alt="AP Photo/MICHAEL A. MARIANT" /></a><br />Killer Rampage Dude <a href="http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1729732">walks into a Dennys</a> carrying a semiautomatic handgun AND a revolver. That's, what?, 15 rounds before he even reloads?<br /><br />Frankly, we're always surprised, when these things happen, that so FEW people are killed. Columbine, the DC sniper spree, even <span class="fullpost"> Sept. 11, when initial reports estimated a death toll of 10,000.<br /><br />Yes, terrible things happen in the world. Anyone else notice how frequently, though, terrible things <em>fail </em>to happen?<br /><br />-- <strong>The Practical Mormon</strong></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1142460459228707152006-03-15T14:07:00.000-08:002006-03-16T06:59:27.256-08:00'Til Death Do WHO Part?<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/1600/wedding.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/200/wedding.jpg" border="0" alt="Goin' to the Temple and We're...Gonna Get Mar-arr-arried" /></a><br />Jeff Lindsay, who operates one of our favorite <a href="http://www.jefflindsay.com/ldslinks.shtml#balsamic_vinegar" target="_blank">LDS resources</a>, observes in a post on marriages made outside of the temple: <a href="http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2006/03/on-marrying-outside-church-asenath-and.html" target="_blank">"Of course...temple marriage is best."</a> <br /><br />True, that. But <font color="red">temple marriage is also inevitable.</font> <br /><br />It's a bit silly of Latter-day Saints, is it not, to <span class="fullpost"> proclaim the superiority of temple marriages over secular ones that "end at 'death do we part.'" <br /><br />If we honestly believed that to be the case, we'd have no need of vicarious sealings, now would we?<br /><br />Brother Lindsay is exactly correct when he calls for Latter-day Saints to "support and nurture every marriage among us and help our members and their non-member spouses, if such be the case, find joy and fellowship in our midst."<br /><br />-- <strong>The Practical Mormon</strong></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1142373867350672392006-03-15T00:02:00.000-08:002006-03-15T14:32:18.886-08:00We Save an Evangelical (Paper)<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/1600/temple3.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/320/temple3.jpg" border="0" alt="The Christ Child Gives Old Traditionalists New Understanding" /></a><br /><em>Note: This is an old version of the paper as posted (unauthorized) to a newsgroup. It is reproduced here from the Deja News archive. See [below] for information about the current, edited and updated version. - AWH<br /><br />Note 2: And THIS is a copy of that same paper, preserved from Google cache, that is apparently about to disappear from <a href="http://www.cephasministry.com/mormon_apologetics_losing_battle.html" target="_blank">this site</a>. <strong>- TPM </strong></em><br /><br /><h3><center><strong>Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, <br />and Evangelical Neglect:<br />Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?</strong></h3>by Carl Mosser and Paul Owen</center><br />1997 Evangelical Theological Society Far West Annual Meeting April 25, 1997<br /> <br />The paper <span class="fullpost"> has now been published in Trinity Journal (Fall '98, p179-205). Note: The Trinity Journal version includes editorial changes and additions.<br /><br /><strong>Carl Mosser </strong>is a recent graduate of Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California, where he earned masters degrees in Theology, New Testament, and Philosophy of Religion and Ethics. <strong>Paul Owen </strong>is a Ph.D candidate at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, where he is studying in the department of New Testament language, Literature, and Theology. <br /><br /><strong>Introduction </strong><br />Spiritual warfare is a reality. Battle in the spiritual realm is not fought with guns and tanks in the manner of the world. This is the war of ideas that vie for men's minds. The Apostle Paul tells us that the weapons we fight with have divine power to demolish such intellectual strongholds. Of Christians he says that, "we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/2_cor/10/5#5" target="_blank">II Cor. 10:5</a>). However, to tear down arguments entails that one must first know what the arguments are. This paper seeks to describe the scholarly and apologetic arguments of one group which we, as evangelicals, believe inhibit true knowledge of God. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormonism, has, in recent years, produced a substantial body of literature defending their beliefs. This paper does not discuss the full range of defensive and offensive scholarship by Latter-day Saints. Instead, we will focus our discussion upon those disciplines that fall under the broad categories of biblical studies and church history. We choose these two categories because of the importance they play in understanding Christian origins and the nature of early Christianity. Both Mormonism and evangelicalism claim to be the Church which Christ founded. Both claim to be the heirs of New Testament Christianity. Both cannot be correct. It is then appropriate to focus on these disciplines because knowing what the beliefs and practices of the earliest Christians were and whether or not the Church which Christ founded apostatized is the central issue of contention. We realize that what we say will not be welcomed by all, especially by some in the counter-cult movement. Some may criticize us for giving the Mormons too much credit and for being too harsh on our fellow evangelicals. However, much like testifying against a loved one in court, we cannot hide the facts of the matter. In this battle the Mormons are fighting valiantly. And the evangelicals? It appears that we may be losing the battle and not knowing it. But this is a battle we cannot afford to lose. It is our deep hope that this paper will, in some small way, serve to awaken members of the evangelical comnmunity [sic] to the important task at hand.<br /><br /><strong>Section A: Mormonism <br />I. Evangelical Myths and Five Conclusions </strong><br />There are many evangelical myths concerning Mormon scholarship. The first is that there are few, if any, traditional Mormon scholars with training in fields pertinent to evangelical-Mormon debates. This is simply false. It is a myth that when Mormons receive training in historiography, biblical languages, theology and philosophy they invariably abandon traditional LDS beliefs in the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the prophethood of Joseph Smith. It is a myth that liberal Mormons have so shaken the foundations of LDS belief that Mormonism is crumbling apart. It is a myth that neo-orthodox Mormons have influenced the theology of their Church to such a degree that it will soon abandon traditional emphases and follow a path similar to the RLDS or the World-Wide Church of God.1 These are myths based upon ignorance and selective reading. These myths must be abandoned by responsible evangelicals.<br /><br />The title of this paper reflects five conclusions we have come to concerning Mormon-evangelical debates. The first is that <font color="red">there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars</font>. We use the term scholar in its formal sense of "intellectual, erudite; skilled in intellectual investigation; trained in ancient languages."2 Broadly, Mormon scholarship can be divided into four categories: traditional, neo-orthodox, liberal and cultural. We are referring to the largest and most influential of the four categories: traditional Mormon scholars. It is a point of fact that the Latter-day Saints are not an anti-intellectual group like Jehovah's Witnesses. Mormons, in distinction to groups like JWs, produce work that has more than the mere appearance of scholarship. <br /><br />The second conclusion we have come to is that <font color="red">Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms</font>. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex.<br /><br />A third conclusion we have come to is that <font color="red">currently there are, as far as we are aware, no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibily interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writings</font>.3 In a survey of twenty recent evangelical books criticizing Mormonism we found that none interact with this growing body of literature. Only a handful demonstrate any awareness of pertinent works. Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number of these books claim to be "the definitive" book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors' integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility.<br /><br />Our fourth conclusion is that <font color="red">at the academic level evangelicals are losing the debate with the Mormons</font>. We are losing the battle and do not know it. In recent years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably while evangelical responses have not.4 Those who have the skills necessary for this task rarely demonstrate an interest in the issues. Often they do not even know that there is a need. In large part this is due entirely to ignorance of the relevant literature.<br /><br />Finally, our fifth conclusion is that <font color="red">most involved in the counter-cult movement lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic</font>. The need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers and historians to examine and answer the growing body of literature produced by traditional LDS scholars and apologists.<br /><br /><strong>II. The Goals of Mormon Scholarship </strong><br />We realize that our five conclusions may be controversial. However, having read an immense amount of the scholarly literature published (in both LDS and non-LDS venues) by Latter-day Saint intellectuals;5 having read a great deal of apologetic material produced by the <a href="http://ldessays.blogspot.com/2006/03/mormon-critics-can-quit-now.html" target="_blank" target="_blank">Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS)</a>; and having read or examined most evangelical works on Mormonism, we feel that we are justified in our conclusions. The scholarship of Mormon writers is often rigorous. In the least their work warrants examination. Further, we have had a number of opportunities to converse with several leading LDS academians. Last summer we even spent three days at BYU attending the FARMS/BYU sponsored International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Because of our opportunities to interact with LDS scholars we believe that we can (in part) see where they are coming from and where they are headed. <br /><br />So what are the LDS scholar-apologists trying to prove? In what intellectually plausible ways are they supporting their unique scriptural canon and doctrinal system? The main body of this paper is devoted to illustrating the answer to this question. The Mormon goals are fairly straightforward. First, they believe the Book of Mormon to be an ancient text written by people of Jewish lineage. A number of studies have been done which attempt to reveal Hebraic literary techniques, linguistic features, cultural patterns and other markers which, it is argued, Joseph Smith would not have been capable of fabricating. <br /><br />Second, Latter-day Saints believe that other ancient texts have been restored through Joseph Smith (e.g. the books of Moses and Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price). As a result, Mormon scholars have taken a great deal of interest in the study of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi texts. <br /><br />The goal here is to highlight features which these ancient documents share with their own sacred literature. Third, it is a conviction of the LDS Church that earliest Christianity suffered substantial apostasy from the latter first century through the end of the second century. This apostasy is usually equated with the process of post-apostolic Hellenization. Under this theory they maintain that the original doctrines of the ancient Church were not lost all at once. So Latter-day Saints have taken a keen interest in the beliefs and practices of the early post-apostolic Church. Special attention has been given to the writings of the Patristic Fathers in an effort to demonstrate similarities with Mormon belief and practice. These similarities are not intended to show that the early Christians were proto-Mormons but rather that remnants of true pre-Hellenized belief remained for a time after the apostasy. In this regard Mormon academians (along with many non-LDS scholars) have taken keen interest in the "parting of the ways" between Judaism and Christianity.<br /><br /><strong>III. Hugh Nibley: The Father of Mormon Scholarly Apologetics</strong> <br /><strong>Hugh Nibley</strong> is without question the pioneer of LDS scholarship and apologetics. Since earning his Ph.D. at the University of California at Berkeley in 1939, Nibley has produced a seemingly endless stream of books and articles covering a dauntingly vast array of subject matter. Whether writing on Patristics, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Apocrypha, the culture of the Ancient Near East or Mormonism, he demonstrates an impressive command of the original languages, primary texts and secondary literature. He has set a standard which younger LDS intellectuals are hard pressed to follow. There is not room here for anything approaching an exhaustive examination of Nibley's works.6 We must confess with <strong>Truman Madsen</strong>, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Religion at Brigham Young University: "To those who know him best, and least, Hugh W. Nibley is a prodigy, an enigma, and a symbol."7<br /><br />The few evangelicals who are aware of Hugh Nibley often dismiss him as a fraud or pseudo-scholar. Those who would like to quickly dismiss his writings would do well to heed Madsen's warning: "Ill-wishing critics have suspected over the years that Nibley is wrenching his sources, hiding behind his footnotes, and reading into antique languages what no responsible would ever read out. Unfortunately, few have the tools to do the checking."8 The bulk of Nibley's work has gone unchallenged by evangelicals despite the fact that he has been publishing relevant material since 1946. Nibley's attitude toward evangelicals: "We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes."9<br /><br />No doubt there are flaws in Nibley's work, but most counter-cultists do not have the tools to demonstrate this. Few have tried.10 It is beyond the scope of this paper to critique Nibley's methodology or to describe the breadth of his apologetic.11 Whatever flaws may exist in his methodology, Nibley is a scholar of high caliber. Many of his more important essays first appeared in academic journals such as the Revue de Qumran, Vigilae Christianae, Church History, and the Jewish Quarterly Review.12 Nibley has also received praise from non-LDS scholars such as Jacob Neusner, James Charlesworth, Cyrus Gordon, Raphael Patai and Jacob Milgrom.13 The former dean of the Harvard Divinity School, George MacRae, once lamented while hearing him lecture, "It is obscene for a man to know that much!"14 Nibley has not worked in a cloister. It is amazing that few evangelical scholars are aware of his work. In light of the respect Nibley has earned in the non-LDS scholarly world it is more amazing that counter-cultists can so glibly dismiss his work.<br /><br />For many years Nibley may have been conservative Mormonism's only reputable scholar. However, due to Nibley's influence as a motivating professor, today there are many more. During the years Nibley taught at BYU several LDS students followed his example by going on to earn the degrees necessary to gain a hearing in the academic community. For example, <strong>Stephen E. Robinson</strong> went on to Duke University to earn a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies under W. D. Davies and James Charlesworth.15 Others went in different directions: <strong>S. Kent Brown</strong> took a doctorate from Brown University, focusing his research on the Nag Hammadi texts; <strong>C. Wilfred Griggs</strong> received a Ph.D. in ancient history from the University of California at Berkeley and is a specialist in early Egyptian Christianity;16 under the supervision of David Noel Freedman and Frank Moore Cross, <strong>Kent P. Jackson</strong> took a doctorate in Near Eastern studies from the University of Michigan after completing a dissertation on the Ammonite language;17 <strong>Avraham Gileadi</strong> earned his Ph.D. at BYU, with R. K. Harrison serving as the primary reader of his dissertation concerning the literary structure of Isaiah;18 <strong>Stephen D. Ricks</strong> received a doctorate in Near Eastern Religions from the University of California at Berkeley and Graduate Theological Union under Jacob Milgrom;19 <strong>Donald W. Parry</strong> received his Ph.D. in Hebrew jointly from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and University of Utah; <strong>John Gee</strong> is currently completing a Ph.D. in Egyptology at Yale University. Many more examples of Mormon scholars with equal credentials could be listed. Currently another crop of traditional Mormon intellectuals, in part funded by FARMS' Hugh Nibley Fellowships, are earning advanced degrees from Oxford, Duke, Claremont, UCLA, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, Catholic University of America, and elsewhere. Their fields of study are quite relevant: New Testament, Syriac, Early Christianity, Near Eastern languages and cultures, and other disciplines. The significance of these facts is simple: Mormons have the training and skills to produce robust defenses of their faith.<br /><br /><strong>IV. The Book of Mormon: An Ancient Text?</strong> <br />The increased sophistication of LDS scholarly apologetic is clearly seen in their approach to the Book of Mormon. Not only do they use scholarship to defend the Book against common criticisms; they are attempting to place it squarely into an ancient Near Eastern background. It is their contention that the Bookl of Mormon reflects the culture, language and customs of ancient Semitic peoples. This reflection is seen not only in the major story line but also in subtle and important ways which, they argue, Joseph Smith (or anyone else living in the nineteenth century) could not have extrapolated from the Bible.<br /><br />For example, <strong>Paul Y. Hoskisson</strong> (Assistant Prof. of Ancient Scripture at BYU) wrote an important essay entitled, "Textual Evidences for the Book of Mormon."20 Hoskisson begins his study by pointing out: "In order for material in the Book of Mormon to be sufficient evidence for an ancient Near Eastern vorlage, as I am using the term sufficient here, it must be demonstrated that the textual material is ancient Near Eastern and that it was not available to Joseph Smith."21 The point being made is that while certain features of the text could be explained as pointing to an ancient Near Eastern origin, not all such evidence would qualify as sufficient evidence. Thus we see an LDS scholar attempting to establish some methodological controls for what constitutes "proof" in the Book of Mormon debate. In his essay Hoskisson provides what he feels are examples of sufficient evidence for an ancient Near Eastern vorlage for the Book of Mormon. The first item of evidence examined relates to the statement, "their souls did expand" in <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/5/9#9" target="_blank" target="_blank">Alma 5:9</a>. In context the meaning appears to approximate "they became happy," in light of the structural parallelism with the phrase 'they did sing redeeming love' to celebrate their freedom."22 Hoskisson points out that the King James Bible does not use the word soul in conjunction with expand, although the Book of Mormon also speaks of the soul enlarging and swelling in <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/32/28#28" target="_blank" target="_blank">Alma 32:28</a> and <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/32/34#34" target="_blank" target="_blank">Alma 32:34</a> (respectively). He remarks: "This phrase appears to be unusual. Why should a soul expand? If this phrase is unique in English to the Book of Mormon, could the phrase reflect an ancient Near Eastern vorlage rather than have its origin in English?"23 After pointing out a lack of evidence for this phrase in any extant pre-1830 English source, he goes on to point to instances of this metaphor in Ugaritic and Akkadian sources.<br /><br />However, ultimately this is not found to be an example of sufficient evidence, because the phrase "expand the soul" does occur in German, and English belongs to the Germanic language group. Hoskisson admits: "Therefore, though the phrase 'expand the soul' does not occur in any readily available pre-1830 English text, and though it is an authentic ancient Near Eastern Semitic phrase, because it is attested in German, we must conclude that the phrase 'their souls did expand' is at best necessary evidence for an authentic Near Eastern Semitic Book of Mormon vorlage, [sic] but not sufficient evidence."24<br /><br />Following this discussion, Hoskisson provides three examples of what he feels are "sufficient" evidence: 1) the repeated use of the <a href="http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/96-08/1209.html" target="_blank" target="_blank">cognate accusative</a> in the Book of Mormon (e.g. <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/5/15#15" target="_blank" target="_blank">2 Nephi 5:15</a>; <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/9/8#8" target="_blank" target="_blank">Mos. 9:8</a>; <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/11/13#13" target="_blank" target="_blank">11:13</a>; <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/23/5#5" target="_blank" target="_blank">23:5</a>); 2) the occurrence of the Jewish name <a href="http://comevisit.com/lds/bom-evid.htm#xii" target="_blank" target="_blank">Alma in a land transaction found at Nahal Hever</a>, dating from the time of the Bar-Kochba revolt;25 and 3) the concept of the oceanic waters being the fountain of rivers, which is typical of ancient Near Eastern thought, and occurs in <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/2/9#9" target="_blank" target="_blank">1 Nephi 2:9</a>. A second study that we want to look at was done by <strong>C. Wilfred Griggs</strong> (Associate Professor of Classics, History, and Ancient Scriptures and Director of Ancient Studies, Brigham Young University). His essay is entitled, "The Book of Mormon as an Ancient Book."26 He begins his study by throwing out a challenge to critics of the Book of Mormon: "It claims to be an ancient book, and it must be examined and criticized in terms of its claim. [break] "Since nobody could feasibly invent a work the length of the Book of Mormon which represented ancient Near Eastern society accurately, subjecting the book to the text of historical integrity would be a rather easy task for any specialist to undertake."27 Griggs goes on to file a complaint which we would agree is somewhat justified: "It is precisely this dimension of historical criticism, however, which has been almost totally neglected in attempts to establish the book as a fraud."28 <br /><br />As an example somewhat parallel to the Book of Mormon, Griggs points to the 1958 discovery by Morton Smith of the purported letter of Clement of Alexandria written to a certain Theodore. The contents of this letter were previously unknown to the scholarly world, and there is no mention of Theodore in any of Clement's extant writings. The date of the copy, which was discovered in the <a href="http://www.geocities.com/bethlehem74/marsaba.htm" target="_blank" target="_blank">Mar Saba monastery</a> near Jerusalem, was fairly easy to establish at around 1750. However, after a detailed study of this document in comparison with other ancient sources, <strong>Morton Smith </strong>concluded that this was indeed an authentic letter of Clement. Griggs comments: "If a two-and-a-half-page text can elicit 450 pages [the length of Morton Smith's study] of analysis and commentary in an attempt to determine its authenticity, one would not expect less from the scholarly world in the case of the Book of Mormon."29<br /><br />Griggs moves on from there to an examination of the Tree of Life dream recorded in <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/8" target="_blank" target="_blank">1 Nephi 8-15</a> against the backdrop of Mediterranean texts which date to approximately Lehi's time (sixth century BC). His discussion mentions numerous examples of religious and magical texts written on gold, silver and bronze tablets. Of particular interest are the so-called "<a href="http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/gold.htm" target="_blank" target="_blank">Orphic gold plates</a>" which date as early as the fifth-century BC and have been found in such scattered areas as Italy, Greece and Crete.30 Scholars are agreed that these gold plates demonstrate foreign influence, but have not come to a consensus as to what that influence was. Griggs notes, however, "The influence was certainly from the ancient Near East, even if there is no agreement on where the ideas were originally found."31 Having noted this, the remainder of the examination involves a comparison of the rituals connected with these plates with materials in the Egyptian Book of the Dead and Lehi's dream in the Book of Mormon, the most feasible and plausible explanation for the internal characteristics shared by the Book of Mormon is that seventh/sixth-century BC Egypt is the common meeting ground for the two traditions."32<br /><br />There is not room here for detailed study of further examples of scholarly defences of the Book of Mormon. But there are many more which do merit attention. <strong>John Welch</strong> has argued for an ancient vorlage based on chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon.33 <strong>Donald W. Parry</strong>, professor of Hebrew at BYU and a member of the International Dead Sea Scrolls Editing Team, has published an exhaustive study of Hebrew poetic structures in the Book of Mormon text.34 <strong>Roger R. Keller</strong>, a former Presbyterian minister armed with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from Duke University, has written a monograph arguing on the basis of distinctive word usages that the Book of Mormon cannot be the product of a single nineteenth-century author, but rather is the product of several ancient writers.35 <strong>John Tvedtnes</strong>, senior project manager for FARMS, has written technical studies on Hebraisms and Isaiah variants in the Book of Mormon.36 Several studies involving form-critical analysis also require some attention. <br /><br /><strong>Stephen D. Ricks</strong>, Professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages at BYU, has written a detailed article discussing King Benjamin's coronation in Mosiah 1-6 against the backdrop of ancient Near Eastern treaty literature.37 <strong>Blake T. Ostler</strong> has examined the account of Lehi's vision in 1 Nephi 1 against the backdrop of the "call form" in similar <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophany" target="_blank">theophanies</a> in the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.38 There are many more studies which could be mentioned, but this should suffice to demonstrate that LDS academicians are producing serious research which desperately needs to be critically examined from an informed evangelical perspective.<br /><br /><strong>V. The Dead Sea Scrolls, Pseudepigrapha, and the Pearl of Great Price</strong> <br />Biblical scholars are well aware of the impact which the discoveries at Qumran and adjacent vicinities have had on both Old and New Tesatment studies.39 The Dead Sea Scrolls have greatly enhanced our understanding of Old Testament textual criticism, Aramaic backgrounds to the New Testament and the complexity of the various Judaisms which existed in first-century Palestine. It would be hard to overestimate the importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls research for understanding the Bible.<br /><br />Recently Mormon scholars have come to the forefront of Dead Sea Scrolls research. FARMS and BYU regularly sponsor international conferences on the Scrolls in Israel or the U.S. attended by world-renowned scholars. At least five [sic] Latter-day Saints are on the International Dead Sea Scrolls Editing Team headed by Emmanuel Tov.40 The work of Latter-day Saints on the Scrolls is readily accepted by the larger academic community and they are often asked to collaborate, contribute or edit books with non-LDS scholars.41 Mormon interest in the Scrolls is not limited to mere curiosity. They use the fruits of their research to promote their faith.42 Mormons have taken a keen interest in the scrolls for several reasons. Foremost among these, they want to support a portrait of early Christianity which is firmly rooted in apocalyptic Judaism. Nibley writes that "this common tradition was not that of conventional Judaism, let alone Hellenistic philosophy; it was the ancient tradition of the righteous few who flee to the desert with their wives and children to prepare for the coming of the Lord and escape persecution at the hands of the official religion."43 <br /><br />Nibley feels that there is a line of continuity between the desert sectarians represented by Lehi and his family (cf. <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/1_ne/2" target="_blank">1 Nephi 2</a>), the community at Qumran, earliest Christianity, and second-century gnosticism. The argument being put forth is not that the Qumran Essenes were proto-Mormons, but simply that Mormonism has more in common with the apocalyptic belief system represented at Qumran than with that of Hellenized Christianity. Nibley continues: "Now with the discovery and admission of the existence of typical New Testament expressions, doctrines, and ordinances well before the time of Christ, the one effective argument against the Book of Mormon collapses."44 Elsewhere he points to ten parallels between the Qumran literature and the Book of Mormon. The tenth example is given as follows: "For the first time we now learn of the ancient Jewish background of (1) the theological language of the New Testament and Christian apocrypha, (2) their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology" target="_blank">eschatological </a>doctrines, and (3) their organizational and liturgical institutions. <br /><br />All three receive their fullest exposition in 3 Nephi, where the Messiah himself comes and organizes his church on the foundations already laid for it."45 Nibley is not alone in pointing out parallels between the Qumran texts and Mormon scripture. <strong>William J. Hamblin</strong> complains that "the critics [of Mormonism] have never explained why we find close linguistic and literary parallels between the figure Mahujah in Dead Sea Scrolls Aramaic fragments of the <a href="http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/enoch.htm" target="_blank">Book of Enoch</a> and Mahijah questioning Enoch in the book of Moses (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/6/40#40" target="_blank">Moses 6:40</a>)." 46 their community was led by a council of twelve men with three governing priests, they had sacred meals of bread and wine administered by priests,49 and they believed in continuing revelation through a prophetic leader. He writes, "All of this leads to the conclusion that in many ways the Essenes may have been closer to the [Mormon] gospel than other Jewish sects."50 <br /><br />As with defenses of the Book of Mormon, more examples could be listed. In light of the growing participation of LDS scholars in Scrolls research we can be sure that many more will be brought to our attention.<br /><br />Mormon scholars also have a related interest in the Old Testament pseudepigrapha. Their involvement in pseudepigraphal studies can be seen in the two volume Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, edited by <strong>James H. Charlesworth</strong>.51 The dust jacket of the work states: "Scholars, Bible students, professionals of all religious groups and denominations, and lay peopleindeed, all those who can be signified as 'People of the Book,' Christians, Jews, Mormons, Muslims will be interested in these translations."52 The editor's preface contains a thanks to Brigham Young University's <a href="http://religion.byu.edu/rsc.htm" target="_blank">Religious Studies Center</a> for their partial funding of the project. <strong>Stephen E. Robinson</strong>, a student of Charlesworth's, was responsible for the translation and commentary of the <a href="http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/apocezekiel.html" target="_blank">Apocryphon of Ezekiel</a>, the <a href="http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/testadam.html" target="_blank">Testament of Adam</a> and <a href="http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/summaries/4baruch-notes.htm" target="_blank">4 Baruch</a>.53<br /><br />Whereas LDS interest in the Dead Sea Scrolls is primarily related to the desire to root earliest Christianity in the soil of apocalyptic Judaism, the pseudepigrapha offer more specific points of contact between LDS scriptures and various ancient sources. The Mormons are not generally trying to say that genetic literary relationships exist between these texts, but rather that there are significant conceptual parallels which point to an ancient milieu for the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price.<br /><br />In a panel discussion a question was asked concerning connections between Mormon scriptures and ancient sources such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Pseudepigrapha and the <a href="http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/naghamm/nhl.html" target="_blank">Nag Hammadi</a> texts. In answer <strong>S. Kent Brown</strong> pointed to two main areas. First of all, there are points of contact with regard to interest in key personalities: Adam (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/6/45-68#45" target="_blank">Moses 6:45-68</a>; cf. <a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/giants/giants.htm" target="_blank">Life of Giants</a> [sic] fragments, and the Ethiopic, Slavonic and Hebrew books of Enoch), Melchizedek (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/13/14-19#14" target="_blank">Alma 13:14-19</a>; cf. 11Q Melchizedek and the Nag Hammadi Melchizedek work), Abraham (Book of Abraham; cf. The <a href="http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/testabraham.html" target="_blank">Testament of Abraham</a> and <a href="http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/apocabraham.html" target="_blank">Apocalypse of Abraham</a>), and Joseph (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/3/5-21#5" target="_blank">2 Nephi 3:5-21</a>; cf. <a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/fbe/fbe292.htm" target="_blank">Testament of Joseph</a>). Second, there are parallels in terms of key themes such as the Creation account (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/3/21-5#21" target="_blank">Moses 3:21-5:21</a>; cf. 4 Ezra 6:38-54 and the Gnostic, On the Origin of the World and the <a href="http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/naghamm/hypostas.html" target="_blank">Hypostasis of the Archons</a>), the notion of a pre-mortal existence of souls (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/18-28#18" target="_blank">Abraham 3:18-28</a>; cf. the <a href="http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/naghamm/jam.html" target="_blank">Apocryphon of James</a> and the <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html" target="_blank">Gospel of Thomas</a>, saying 4), and the idea of an eschatological restoration following a period of apostasy (cf. <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apocalypsepeter.html" target="_blank">The Apocalypse of Peter</a> in the Nag Hammadi library).54<br /><br />Space does not permit an extended discussion of LDS use of the <a href="http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/pseudepigrapha.htm" target="_blank">Old Testament Pseudepigrapha</a>, the <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/" target="_blank">New Testament Apocrypha</a> and the <a href="http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/naghamm/nhl.html" target="_blank">Nag Hammadi</a> texts.55 However, several studies deserve mention. <strong>Hugh Nibley</strong> wrote a book-length work on the extant Enoch literature.56 <strong>Stephen E. Robinson</strong>, in a very sober article, makes several interesting points: Paul's apparent use of the <a href="http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/wisdom.html" target="_blank">Wisdom of Solomon</a>, which teaches the premortal existence of souls (8:19 ff.) and the creation of the world out of unformed matter (11:17); the <a href="http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2004/07/narrative-of-zosimus-critics-best-hope.html" target="_blank">Narrative of Zosimus</a> (also known as <a href="http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/rechabites.html" target="_blank">History of the Rechabites</a>) which contains an interesting tradition about Jews leaving Jerusalem in Jeremiah's time, and travelling across the ocean to a land of promise;57 the <a href="http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/testadam.html" target="_blank">Testament of Adam</a> (3:1-5), which contains an account similar to what is found in <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/107/53-56#53" target="_blank">Doctrine and Covenants 107:53-56</a>; and the <a href="http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/naghamm/gop.html" target="_blank">Gospel of Philip</a>, which describes a three-stage initiation rite which corresponds to the three chambers of the Jerusalem temple.58 In another interesting study, <strong>S. Kent Brown</strong> compares the titles Man of Holiness and Man of Counsel in <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/6/57#57" target="_blank">Moses 6:57</a> and <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/7/35#35" target="_blank">7:35</a> with material in the Hebrew Bible and two later documents, <a href="http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/naghamm/eugn.html" target="_blank">Eugnostos the Blessed</a> and <a href="http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/sjc.html" target="_blank">The Sophia of Jesus Christ</a>.59 LDS writers are not alone in noting various parallels between these ancient texts and Mormon literature. <strong>James H. Charlesworth</strong>, in a lecture delivered at Brigham Young University entitled, "Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha and the Book of Mormon," points to what he describes as "important parallels that deserve careful examination." He cites examples from <a href="http://www.carm.org/lost/2baruch.htm" target="_blank">2 Baruch</a>, <a href="http://www.piney.com/Apocry2Esdras.html" target="_blank">4 Ezra</a>, <a href="http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/psalmssolomon.html" target="_blank">Psalms of Solomon</a> and the <a href="http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/testadam.html" target="_blank">Testament of Adam</a>.60 If the world's leading authority on ancient pseudepigraphal writings thinks such examples deserve "careful examination," it might be wise for evangelicals to do some examining. <strong>George Nickelsburg </strong>has also noted a rather interesting parallel between the Qumranic <a href="http://www.piney.com/DSSBkGiants.html" target="_blank">Book of the Giants</a> and the LDS <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/moses/contents" target="_blank">Book of Moses</a> in the Pearl of Great Price.61 Yale's <strong>Harold Bloom </strong>is perplexed as how to explain the many parallels between Joseph Smith's writings and ancient apocalyptic, pseudepigraphal, and kabbalistic literature. He writes, "Smith's religious genius always manifested itself through what might be termed his charismatic accuracy, his sure sense of relevance that governed biblical and Mormon parallels. I can only attribute to his genius or daemon his uncanny recovery of elements in ancient Jewish theurgy that had ceased to be available to normative Judaism or to Christianity, and that had survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched Smith directly."62<br /><br /><strong>VI. Mormonism and Earliest Christianity: Evidence of an Apostasy?</strong> <br />It is a central tenet of Mormonism that the original Church established by Christ apostatized. Latter-day Saint scholars (among others) contend that the Church of the post-apostolic period differed substantially from earliest Christianity. In this Mormon scholars have, in large part, adopted the views of <strong>Adolph Harnack </strong>and <strong>Walter Bauer</strong>.63 The spirit of apostasy and the increasing influence of Hellenization contirbuted [sic] to a spiritual and doctrinal decline in the second and third centuries. According to this thesis, the result was that early Christianity, rooted in apocalyptic Judaism, was transformed into a synthetic blend of "Christianity" and pagan Platonic philosophy. The process of Hellenization was so severe that it literally killed the religion Christ founded and replaced it with something else.<br /><br /><strong>Stephen E. Robinson </strong>summarizes his view when he writes: Essentially, what happened is that we have good sources for New Testament Christianity (the New Testament documents themselves); then the lights go out (that is, we have very few historical sources), and in the dark we hear the muffled sounds of a great struggle. When the lights come on again a hundred or so years later, we find that someone has rearranged all the furniture and that Christianity is something very different from what it was in the beginning. That different entity can be accurately described by the term <a href="http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/faq/faq_doctrine.htm" target="_blank">hellenized Christianity</a>.64<br /><br />Mormons have written several studies in this area.65 As usual, <strong>Hugh Nibley </strong>led the way.66 He began with a book published under the title, The World and the Prophets. This book is the edited transcript from a series of talks originally delivered to an LDS radio audience between March 7 and October 17, 1954 entitled, "Time Vindicates the Prophets."67 In this book, according to the foreword by <strong>R. Douglas Phillips</strong>, Nibley "describes with great clarity the process by which the Church changed from an organization with inspired prophets into a thoroughly different and alien institution built upon the learning of men. he shows how prophets were replaced by scholars, revelation by philosophy, inspired preaching by rhetoric."68 Whatever one may think about Nibley's conclusions, the breadth of learning displayed in these lectures is, frankly, intimidating. In them he discusses hundreds of passages from Papias, Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origin, Athanasius, Augustine, and Chrysostom (among others). In classic Nibley style all references are personally translated from the Greek and Latin originals.<br /><br />Mormon intellectuals do not confine their reconstruction of early Christian history to Latter-day Saint audiences. In an attempt to reach a wider academic audience <strong>C. Wilfred Griggs </strong>has published a book-length history of early Egyptian Christianity with <strong>E.J. Brill</strong>.69 By its frequent bibliographic listing in standard church history reference books it appears that Griggs' work has been received favourably.70 Though in no way an explicit apologetic for Mormonism, this book lends much support to the LDS thesis. In it he argues that earliest Christianity, as it was introduced to Egypt in the first century, was not the same species that was later identified as "orthodox." Griggs declares that "a radical bifurcation of Christianity into orthodoxy and heresy cannot be shown to have existed in Egypt during the first two centuries."71 His study of many early Christian and Gnostic papyri found in Egypt during the last hundred and fifty years leads Griggs to agree with Bauer's main thesis.72 That is, certain manifestations of Christianity which the Church later renounced as heresies "originally had not been such at all, but at least here and there, were only the form of the new religionthat is, for those regions they were simply 'Christianity.'"73 What later <a href="http://heresiology.blogspot.com/2006/01/definition-of-heresiology.html" target="_blank">heresiologists</a> like Irenaeus identified as "<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm" target="_blank">gnosticism</a>" in Egypt was simply "Christianity" to the Egyptians.74<br /><br />Griggs portrays a version of early Christianity quite different from the nascent Catholicism which later developed into "orthodoxy." This version had a more extensive literary tradition, broader theological tendencies, and more esoteric ritual practice.75 He maintains that the archaeological evidence points to a version of Christianity "based on a literary tradition encompassing both canonical and non-canonical works (both categories being named as such here in light of their later status as defined by the Catholic tradition). Egyptian Christians did accept the Apocalyptic literary tradition so notably rejected by the Western Church, especially as reflected in the Resurrection Ministry texts, but not at the expense of the gospel or epistolary tradition of the emerging Catholic Church."76 This version of Christianity thrived in the Nile Valley for quite some time.77 Its demise began at the end of the second century with the Bishop of Alexandria being influenced by Irenaeus' <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm" target="_blank">Against Heresies</a>. The Bishop and his successors, in a vie for prestige, increasingly aligned themselves wtih the powerful "orthodox" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_episcopate" target="_blank">episcopates</a>. As the power of the Alexandrian episcopate extended over greater geographical area the original apocalyptic form of Christianity was increasingly condemned as heretical. When the Alexandrian bishops finally held ecclesiastical power for all Egypt, rival versions of Christianity were systematically wiped out.78 The correspondence with the LDS <a href="http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/gospel/restoration/Apostasy_EOM.htm" target="_blank">doctrine of apostasy</a> should be obvious.79 <br /><br />As well as arguing for a radical Hellenization of Christianity, LDS scholars find many parallels between early Christianity and particular LDS practices and doctrines.80 For example, <strong>William J. Hamblin</strong> has written a detailed study comparing Latter-day Saint temple endowment ceremonies with materials known from certain <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism" target="_blank">Gnostic</a> sources and the so-called <a href="http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/library/secm.htm" target="_blank">Secret Gospel of Mark</a>. Hamblin argues, in agreement with Morton Smith, John Dominic Crossan, and Hans-Martin Schenke, that the <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/secretmark.html" target="_blank">Secret Gospel of Mark</a> preserves material which pre-dates canonical Mark. Hamblin notes: "Before the recent discovery of Clement's letter it had usually been maintained by modern scholars that the theologians of Alexandrian Christianity were influenced by Gnostic and Hellenistic concepts. The new letter of Clement shows that the Great Mysteries and Hierophantic Teaching were not copied by the Alexandrians from the Gnostics or Greek Pagans, but, as maintained by Schenke, were part of the earliest ideas and practices of Alexandrian Christianity."81 He moves from there to a discussion of esoteric rites which we know of from the Nag Hammadi library and the writings of Irenaeus, noting twelve parallels with the LDS temple endowment which he feels are significant.82<br /><br />Another example comes from <strong>David L. Paulsen</strong>'s article in the Harvard Theological Review entitled, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses." Paulsen's study begins by appealing to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Harnack" target="_blank">Harnack</a> for support of the view that the second-century Church replaced the personal God of the Bible with an incorporeal deity due to the influence of Platonism. Paulsen writes, "Harnack identifies several sources of early Christian belief in an embodied deity, including popular religious ideas, Stoic metaphysics, and Old Testament sayings, literally understood. But no doubt the biblical writings contributed most significantly to early Christian corporealism; for therein God is described in decidedly anthropomorphic terms." The remainder of Paulsen's article contains a discussion of certain polemical writings of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen" target="_blank">Origen</a> and passages from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo" target="_blank">Augustine</a> which indicate that it was common for Christians in their day to view God as an embodied deity (though Origen and Augustine did not).83<br /><br /><strong>VII. Where is the Bible? </strong><br />In response to the topics we have been discussing one might assert that they are simply irrelevant to the issue at hand. After all, if Mormons cannot ground their beliefs in the Bible it does not matter whether or not they find support for them among the Dead Sea Scrolls, pseudepigrapha, or church history. Without the Bible it does not matter whether they are using their expertise in Near Eastern history, cultures and languages to defend a possible Near Eastern background for the Book of Mormon. We agree that there is truth in this objection. But, the issues are not so simple that they can be dismissed in this way.<br /><br />One of the fundamental issues debated by evangelicals and Mormons is the interpretation of the Bible itself. Both parties claim that the Bible is the Word of God. Both claim to believe every verse of the Bible.84 Both parties claim biblical support for their religion. So, theoretically, much of the debate could be solved by an appeal to the Bible. But before this can be done there must be agreement on the hermeneutical ground rules. It seems that in large part evangelicals and Mormons are agreed that the Bible should be interpreted according to its grammatical-historical sense. Writing about the similarity of evangelical and LDS views on the nature of Scripture, <strong>Stephen E. Robinson</strong> says, "We [LDS] take the Scriptures to be literally true, we hold symbolic, figurative or allegorical interpretation to a minimum, accepting the miraculous events as historical and the moral and ethical teaching as binding and valid."85 This statement is very close to the Chicago Statement on Biblical hermeneutics.86 The question then is not one of methodology.<br /><br />Logically then, what must be established in Mormon-evangelical dialogues is the historical-cultural context in which the biblical texts were written. This is exactly what the Mormons are doing in their studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the pseudepigrapha and Christian origins. They are building the contextual superstructure necessary for a proper interpretation of the Bible, particularly the New Testament. They are arranging the evidence in a manner that will, if flaws are not demonstrated, warrant an interpretation of the New Testament that is both historically-culturally based and at odds with evangelical theology.<br /><br />Though most energies are being spent in the study of these other areas, Mormons have not neglected biblical studies proper. An example that should have made evangelical Old Testament scholars aware of their LDS counterparts was the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Festschrift" target="_blank">festschrift</a> written in honour of R.K. Harrison. Produced in 1988 by an evangelical publishing house, Israel's Apostasy and Restoration contained essays by several leading evangelical scholars as well as three essays written by Mormons (among others). The voluyme [sic] was edited by none other than <strong>Avraham Gileadi</strong>.87 And how does the scholarship of the LDS authors fare in comparison? Their essays in no way stand out as inferior.88 In fact, at least one evangelical theologian has quoted in agreement from these essays in his own writing.89 It strikes us as unusual that no evangelical scholars thought it was odd for Mormons to edit and contribute to this book. It would seem that someone would have investigated to see if these Mormons were using their skills in defence of their faith. As it turns out this book itself does, in very subtle ways, support Mormonism. First, all three of the LDS essays lend support to some aspect of LDS theology.90 Second, the theme of the book and its title reflect the Mormon belief that human history is a series of apostasies from and restorations of true faith (the last being Joseph Smith's Restoration of the Church).<br /><br />It seems that there exists an unfounded presupposition among evangelicals that there are no respectable LDS biblical scholars. This often blinds people from noticing the work LDS scholars have done. Yet, as with the above mentioned theologian, evangelicals quote Mormon scholars for support more than they know. This is not to say that the practice is wrong per se (it's not), or that Mormon scholars might not sometimes make valid points. (There is an analogy here with evangelical quotation of liberal, Catholic or Jewish scholars.) The point we want to make is this: It is inconsistent for evangelicals to insist that heterodox groups like the Mormons have no legitimate biblical scholars, and then utilize the very scholars whose existence they deny.91<br /><br />As with the Book of Mormon, DSS and pseudepigrapha we could describe several examples of LDS biblical scholarship, but space does not permit. In a fuller treatment of the subject we might describe, in addition to the above, the work LDS have done on biblical law,92 chiastic structures,93 the role of magic in the Old Testament,94 the unity of Isaiah,95 Pauline theology96 as well as others.97 Suffice it to say that responsible LDS scholars tend not to participate in the naive <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prooftext" target="_blank">prooftexting</a> that characterizes the average Mormon missionary or lay person.98<br /><br /><strong>Section B: Evangelicalism <br />1. Where are the Evangelicals?</strong> <br />We hope by this point we have convinced some of our readers that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is currently producing a robust apologetic for their beliefs. Their scholars are qualified, ambitious, and prolific. What are we doing in response? The silence has become deafening. And it is getting louder. The only two significant attempts (apart from the <strong>Tanners</strong>) are one article by <strong>James White</strong> and a recent book by Dr. <strong>John Ankerberg </strong>and Dr. <strong>John Weldon</strong>.<br /><br />The article by James White, "Of Cities and Swords: The Impossible Task of Mormon Apologetics," was an attempt to introduce evangelicals to LDS apologetics, to the work of FARMS, and, in the process, critique the group.99 This article failed on all three points. White's article does not mention a single example of the literature we have presented in this paper. He does not accurately describe the work of FARMS, or of LDS scholarship in general. He gives his readers the mistaken impression that their research is not respected in the broader academic community. We believe that we have demonstrated that this is simply not the case. His attempted critique picks out two of the weakest examples. Not only does he pick weak examples, he does not give even these an adequate critique. This is nothing more than "<a href="http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/Logic101a.htm#strawman" target="_blank">straw man</a>" argumentation.<br /><br />The book by John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Behind the Mask of Mormonism: From Its Early Schemes to Its Modern Deceptions, is far worse.100 We have read a great deal of evangelical literature on the subject. This book, in our estimation, is among the ugliest, most unchristian, and misleading polemics in print. The authors constantly belittle their opponents always questioning either their intelligence or integrity. Particularly frustrating is the appendix which was added to the updated edition. They accuse Mormons of being unwilling "to consider the established theological, textual, historical, and archaeological facts surrounding Mormonism and Christianity."101 The fact of the matter is that it is our evangelical brothers who in this book display their own unwillingness to give any consideration to such issues.102 Nor do they intend to. They write: It's not that evangelicals have an objection to evaluating all the arguments and scholarship cited by Mormon critics. Some Mormon apologists think that all critics of Mormonism should spend thousands of dollars and man-hours [like the Mormons are doing?] in order to stay abreast of the latest in Mormon defensive scholarship in its numerous forms and offshoots.&Anyone familiar with the Bible and Christian history knows that biblical, orthodox, Christian doctrine is established and documented. For Mormonism to claim Christian doctrine is false, it must first provide at least some evidence to support its charges.103<br /><br />It is amazing, in light of the massive amount of purported evidence that has been published by the LDS, that they could make such a statement. Not only do they appear to assume that Mormon scholars must not really be "familiar with the Bible and Christian history," but they seem to say that there is no need to spend any significant amount of time or resources to respond. In our opinion the views expressed here simply amount to a refusal to do serious scholarly investigation. It is either the result of apathy or inability. The most they are able to do is offer an enthusiastic endorsement of Brent Lee Metcalfe's anthology, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, and pronounce the battle over.104<br /><br /><strong>II. What Needs to be Done: Some Proposals</strong> <br />The evangelical world needs to wake up and respond to contemporary Mormon scholarship. If not, we will lose the battle without ever knowing it. Our suggestions are as follows: <br /><ul><li>First, evangelicals need to overcome inaccurate presuppositions about Mormonism. <br /><li>Second, evangelical counter-cultists need to refer LDS scholarship that is beyond their ability to rebut, to qualified persons. <br /><li>Third, evangelical academicians need to make Mormonism, or some aspects of it, an area of professional interest. <br /><li>Fourth, evangelical publishers need to cease publishing works that are uninformed, misleading or otherwise inadequate. <br /><li>Fifth, scholars in the evangelical community ought to collaborate in several books addressing the issues raised in this paper. <br /><li>Related to this, professional journals should encoruage articles on these same topics. <br /><li>Finally, might we suggest that members of organizations such as the Evangelical Theological Society consider forming Mormonism Study Groups.</ul>The fact is that the growth of Mormonism is outpacing even the highest predictions of professional sociologists of religion, and is on its way, within eighty years, to becoming the first world-religion since Islam in the seventh century.105 With such growth, the needs expressed in this paper will become ever more pressing as the twenty-first century approaches.<br /><br /><strong>Conclusion </strong><br />The sentiments we have tried to express in this paper are fittingly stated in the words of one prominent evangelical theologian with which we will conclude.<br /><br />This spiritual warfare can be considered under the aegis of a contest of the gods, a neglected biblical theme I want to retrieve. The various religions and their gods appear to be vying for people's allegiance. Competition in religion is not only biblical, it is empirically evident. Vital religions always compete with other's claims. If you can find a religion that is not competitive, you will have found a religion on its last legs. A dynamic religion always wants to tell its story, which adherents think is the best story ever told and the one most worthy of commitment.<br /><br />According to the Bible, history is the theater of a contest of the gods. Gods are in conflict with one another. There operates a kind of survival of the fittest among them. Some go down to defeat, while others move into ascendancy. History is a graveyard of the gods. The living God will outlive them all, proving himself to be the true God. Since this moment of revelation comes at the end of history, and will not be clear to everyone until then, our missionary task in the meantime is testing the proposition concerning God's identity and conducting the contest. We say: let the claims be made, let the information be shared, let the issues be weighed, and let dialogue take place.106<br /><br />___________________________________ <br /><br />1. This is not to say that there have been no important shifts in Latter-day Saint theology. Most notably, Latter-day Saints are emphasizing the role of grace in salvation, the person of Christ, and the centrality of the Book of Mormon in formulating doctrine. It is this last emphasis which insures that Mormonism will not completely abandon its historic distinctives. <br />2. Cf. The Oxford English Dictionary 2nd ed., s.v. "scholar" & "scholarly." Of course, a scholarly method does not guarantee correct conclusions. <br />3. Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Answering Mormon Scholars 2 Vols. (Salt Lake City: Utah Light House Ministry, 1994, 1996) might appear to be an exception. However, this work is primarily an answer to several reviews of their books that appeared <br />in the Review of Books on the Book of Mormon. The Tanners are keen students of Mormon history, but do not have the skills necessary for a full-scale rebuttal of Mormon scholarship. The one true exception is Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish, The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1991). The focus of this book is quite narrow. It is also difficult to obtain. For LDS reviews see David L. Paulsen and Blake T. Ostler in Philosophy of Religion 35 (1994): 118-120; James E. Faulconer in BYU Studies (Fall 1992): 185-195; and especially Blake T. Ostler in FARMS Review of Books 8 no. 2 (1996): 99-146.<br />4. Again, on their limited topic, Beckwith and Parrish are the lone exception.<br />5. Most LDS intellectuals are affiliated with Brigham Young Universities or one of its daughter campuses. However, this summary statement includes a few LDS scholars who teach at non-LDS colleges and universities. Philip L. Barlow, Th.D. (Harvard) is an example of a Mormon scholar who teaches at a non-Mormon institution. He teaches in the department of theology at Hanover College (Presbyterian).<br />6. FARMS is currently working on a twenty volume collection of Nibley's works, ten of which are already published (abbr. CWHN).<br />7. Truman Madsen, foreword to Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless: Classic Essays of Hugh W. Nibley, edited by Madsen (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978), ix.<br />8. Ibid., xiv.<br />9. Quoted by Madsen, ibid., xi.<br />10. In fact, the only substantial evangelical interaction we have seen to date is James White's 56 page (single spaced) disputation of the proper syntax of the pronoun authV in Matthew 16:18. This paper can be acquired from the Alpha & Omega Ministries Internet site.<br />11. For a sharp critique of Nibley's methodology from an LDS perspective see Kent P. Jackson in BYU Studies 28 no. 4 (Fall 1988): 114-119.<br />12. Specific references can be found in John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co. and FARMS, 1990), lxviii-lxxxvii.<br />13. See the contributions by these men in volume one of Nibley's festschrift By Study and Also by Faith.<br />14. See Philip L. Barlow, Mormons and the Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 147 n. 105.<br />15. Robinson's dissertation was published as The Testament of Adam: An Examination of the Syriac and Greek Traditions (SBL Dissertation Series; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982). Other works include: "The Apocryphal Story of Melchizedek," Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period 18 (June 1987): 26-39; "The Testament of Adam and the Angelic <br />Liturgy [4QsirSabb]," Revue de Qumran 12 (1985): 105-110; "The Testament of Adam: An Updated Arbeitsbericht," Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 5 (October, 1989): 95-100. He has also contributed to the Anchor Bible Dictionary and the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.<br />16. See C. Wilfred Grigs, Early Egyptian Christianity: From Its Origins to 451 C.E., Coptic Studies Series, ec. Martin Krause, no. 2 (New York: E. J. Brill, 1990). This book will be discussed below.<br />17. Kent P. Jackson, The Ammonite Language of the Iron Age (Harvard Semitic Monographs; Chico: Scholars Press, 1983).<br />18. For one example of his work on Isaiah see Avraham Gileadi, The Literary Message of Isaiah (New York: Hebraeus Press, 1994). It is significant that this book received endorsements from professors David Noel Freedman and the late R. K. Harrison.<br />19. For an example of Ricks' expertise with Semitic languages, see his Lexicon of Inscriptional Qatabanian (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1989).<br />20. Paul Y. Hoskisson, "Textual Evidences for the Book of Mormon," in The Book of Mormon: First Nephi, The Doctrinal Foundation, ed. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr. (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Centre, 1988), 283-95.<br />21. Ibid., 283.<br />22. Ibid., 284-85.<br />23. Ibid.<br />24. Ibid., 287.<br />25. Hoskisson notes: "Since the publication of the Book of Mormon, other West Semitic names ending with aleph have turned up, indicating that the terminal aleph in Alma is not unique to this name" (p. 294 n. 29). In support he cites a study by fellow Latter-day Saint Kent P. Jackson published in a festschrift in honour of David Noel Freedman: Kent P. Jackson, "Ammonite Personal Names in the Context of the West Semitic Onomasticon," in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Sixtieth Birthday ed. Carol L. Meyers and M. O'Connor (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 507-21. Also, Hoskisson, "An Introduction to the Relevance of and a Methodology for a Study of the Proper Names in the Book of Mormon," in By Study and Also by Faith, 2:126-35.<br />26. C. Wilfred Griggs, "The Book of Mormon as an Ancient Book," in Book of Mormon Authoriship: New Light on Ancient Origins, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1982), 75-101.<br />27. Ibid., 77.<br />28. Ibid.<br />29. Ibid., 78.<br />30. Ibid., 81.<br />31. Ibid., 82.<br />32. Ibid., 91.<br />33. See John W. Welch, "Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon," in Book of Mormon Authorship, 33-52; J. W. Welch, ed., Chiasmus in Antiquity, with a foreword by David Noel Freedman (Hildesheim: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981); J. W. Welch, "Criteria for Identifying and Evaluating the Presence of Chiasmus," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies Vol. 4, no. 2 (Fall 1995): 1-14. On the ritual context of the Book of Mormon see J. W. Welch, The Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co. and FARMS, 1990).<br />34. Donald W. Parry, The Book of Mormon Text Reformatted according to Parallelistic Patterns (Provo: FARMS, 1992).<br />35. Roger R. Keller, Book of Mormon Authors: Their Words and Messages (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1996).<br />36. See John Tvedtnes, "The Hebrew Background of the Book of Mormon," in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon ed. John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co. and FARMS, 1991), 77-91; idem, "Isaiah Variants in <br />the Book of Mormon," in Isaiah and the Prophets ed. Monte S. Nyman (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1984), 165-77.37. Stephen D. Ricks, "The Treaty/Covenant Pattern in King Benjamin's Address (Mosiah 1-6)," BYU Studies (Spring 1984): 151-62.<br />38. Blake T. Ostler, "The Throne-Theophany and Prophetic Commission in 1 Nephi: A Form-Critical Analysis," BYU Studies (Fall 1986): 67-87.<br />39. See for example Joseph Fitzmyer, "The Qumran Scrolls and the New Testament after Forty Years," Revue de Qumran Tome 13 (October 1988): 609-620.<br />40. Donald W. Parry, Andrew Skinner, Dana M. Pike, Stephen J. Pfann [sic] and David Rolph Seely.<br />41. See Florentino Garcia Martinez and Donald W. Parry [LDS], eds. A Bibliography of the Finds in the Desert of Judah, 1970-1995 (New York: E. J. Brill, 1996); Emmanuel Tov, Stephen J. Pfann [LDS {sic}], eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche (Israel Antiquities Authority, 1993); idem, Companion Volume to the Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche Edition (Israel Antiquities <br />Authority, 1995); Donald W. Parry [LDS], "Retelling Samuel: Echoes of the Books of Samuel in the Dead Sea Scrolls," Revue de Qumran Tome 17 (1996): 293-306; Stephen J. Pfann [LDS {sic}], "4QDaniel" (4Q115): a Preliminary Edition with Critical Notes," Revue de Qumran Tome 17 (1996): 37-72; David Rolph Seely [LDS], "The 'Circumcised Heart' in r!434 Barki Nafshi," Revue de Qumran Tome 17 (1996): 527-536; Dana M. Pike [LDS], "The 'Congregation of YHWH' in the bible and at Qumran," Revue de Qumran Tome 17 (1996); 233-240; Andrew Skinner [LDS] and Dana M. Pike [LDS], eds., Discoveries in the Judean Desert XXXIII (Oxford: Clarendon Press, forthcoming); Donald W. Parry [LDS] and Stephen D. Ricks [LDS], eds., Current Research and Technological Developments on the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: E. J. Brill, 1996). From this volume see: Donald W. Parry [LDS], "4Qsama and the Tetragrammaton" (pp. 106-125); Dana M. Pike [LDS], "The Book of Numbers at Qumran: Texts and Context" (pp. 166-194); David Rolph Seely [LDS], "The Barki Nafshi Texts (4Q434-439)" (pp. 194-214); Scott R. Woodward [LDS], and others, "Analysis of Parchment Fragments from the Judean Desert Using DNA Techniques" (pp. 215-238); Donald W. Parry [LDS] and Steven W. Booras [LDS], "The Dead Sea Scrolls CD-ROM Database Project" (pp. 239-250). This last essay describes the groundbreaking computer dftabase Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Reference Library Vol. II produced by FARMS and BYU. Additional collaborators to the project include the Oxford University Press, E.J. Brill, Israel Antiquities Authority and the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center.<br />42. LDS interest in the scrolls can be seen in research projects such as Robert A. Cloward, The Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Selected Bibliography of Text Additions and English Translations (Robert A. Cloward, 1988, available from FARMS); and further Donald W. Parry and Dana M. Pike, eds., LDS Perspectives on the Dead Sea Scrolls (Provo: FARMS, forthcoming). In personal conversations Mormon scholars have described the following as extremely poor examples of LDS usage of the scrolls: Vernon W. Mattson, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Important Discoveries 2nd edition (Salt Lake City: Buried Record Productions, 1979); Eugene Seaich, Mormonism, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Texts (Midvale, UT: Sounds of Zion, 1980); Keith Terry and Steve Biddulph, Dead Sea Scrolls and the Mormon Connection (Maasai: 1996). We concur that there is a vast qualitative difference between these writings and those mentioned above. However, these last examples do illustrate the fact that Mormon interest in the scrolls is growing at a popular level. Editions of the DSS are readily available for laymen to buy in most LDS bookstores.<br />43. Hugh W. Nibley, "More Voices from the Dust," in Old Testament and Related Studies CWHN vol. 1 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co. and FARMS, 1986), 243.<br />44. Nibley, "More Voices," 242.<br />45. Nibley, "The Dead Sea Scrolls: Some Questions and Answers," in Old Testament and Related Studies, 250.<br />46. William J. Hamblin, "An Apologist for the Critics: Brent Lee Metcalfe's Assumptions and Methodologies," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6 no. 1 (1994): 484-485. Hamblin is referring to the Book of the Giants fragments rQ203, rQ530 and 6Q8. For an extended discussion of this and other parallels see Hugh W. Nibley, "Churches in the Wilderness," in Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless ed. Truman G. Madsen (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978): 155-86.<br />47. Gaye Strathearn, "The Wife/Sister Experience: Pharaoh's Introduction to Jehovah," in Thy People Shall be My People and Thy God My God ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1994). The article contains an extended discussion of these and other texts.<br />48. This is thought to be significant because it is an example of Jews baptizing by immersion before the New Testament, thus showing the practice in the Book of Mormon not to be anachronistic.<br />49. The point here is to illustrate distinctively Christian ordinance with roots in pre-Christian Judaism.<br />50. Stephen E. Robinson, "Background for the Testaments," The Ensign (December 1982).<br />51. James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (New York: Doubleday, 1985).<br />52. Emphasis added. Notice how Mormonism is listed with three of the great world religions. See note 105 below.<br />53. See OTP, 1:487-495; 1:989-995; 2:413-417.<br />54. See S. Kent Brown and others, "The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible: A Panel," in Scriptures for the Modern World ed. Paul R. Cheesman and C. Wilfred Griggs (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1984), 81-83.<br />55. For a good example of how Mormon scholars utilize such sources, especially note the cautious essays by Stephen E. Robinson and S. Kent Brown in Apocryphal Writings and the Latter-day Saints ed. C. Wilfred Griggs (Provo: BYU Religius <br />Studies Center, 1986).<br />56. Hugh Nibley, Enoch the Prophet CWHN vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co. and FARMS, 1986). On this especially see John W. Welch, "The Narrative of Zosimus and the Book of Mormon" BYU Studies 22 (Summer, 1982): 311-332.<br />57. On this especially see John W. Welch, "The Narrative of Zosimus and the Book of Mormon" BYU Studies 22 (Summer, 1982): 311-332.<br />58. See Stephen E. Robinson, "Background for the Testaments."<br />59. S. Kent Brown, "Man and Son of Man: Issues of Theology and Christology," in The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations from God ed. H. Donl Peterson and Charles D. Tate (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Centre, 1989), 57-72.<br />60. James H. Charlesworth, "Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha and the Book of Mormon," in Reflections on Mormonism: Judaeo-Christian Parallels ed. Truman G. Madsen (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Centre, 1978), 99-137. Non-LDS biblical <br />scholars Jacob Milgrom, David Noel Freedman, W. D. Davies and Krister Stendahl also contributed to this volume.<br />61. W. D. Davies writes: "As a parallel in the Enochic corpus, George Nickelsburg has called my attention in correspondence to 4QEnGiants&&.8.3: prsgn lwh'tny[n] (''the copy of the sec[on]d tablet')." W. D. Davies, "Reflections on the Mormon 'Canon'", Harvard Theological Review 79:1-3 (1986): 51 n. 18. The parallel here is with Moses 6:46: "For a book of remembrance we have written among us, according to the pattern given us by the finger of God."<br />62. Harold Bloom, The American Religion (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), 101 (emphasis added).<br />63. See Adolph von Harnack, History of Dogma 7 vols. (New York: Dover, 1961); and Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971).<br />64. Stephen E. Robinson, "Early Christianity and 1 Nephi 13-14," in The Book of Mormon: First Nephi, The Doctrinal Foundation, 188. The influence of Greek philosophy on "orthodox" Christianity is a repeated theme in Robinson's recent dialogue with evangelical scholar Craig Blomberg [Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical Conversation (downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997)]. On this issue Robinson and other Latter-day Saints are fond of Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church (London: Williams and Norgate, 1895; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995).<br />65. We are not referring here to the popular level use of the Fathers exemplified in Van Hale's debates, nor to the extremely poor handling of sources in Michael T. Griffith, One Lord, One Faith: Writings of the Early Christian Fathers as Evidences of the Restoration (Bountiful, UT: Horizon Publishers, 1996). These examples do not represent the strength of the LDS apologetic from church history.<br />66. Nibley's most important works in this area area: The World and the Prophets CWHN vol. 3 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co. and FARMS, 1987) and Mormonism and Early Christianity CWHN vol. 4 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co. and FARMS, <br />1987).<br />67. These lectures were recorded and are available under their original title in most LDS bookstores and from FARMS [P.O. Box 7113, University Station, Provo, UT 84602]. We recommend the purchase of this series as an excellent introduction to <br />Nibley. His command of the Patristic sources is most impressive. The book contains a few additional essays and citations for all references but fails to convey the full vigour of the original lectures.<br />68. Phillips, "Foreword," The World and the Prophets, x, xi.<br />69. C. Wilfred Griggs, Early Egyptian Christianity: From Its Origins to 451 C.E., Coptic Studies Series, ed. Martin Krause, no. 2 (New York: E.J. Brill, 1990).<br />70. For example, Griggs' book is listed in several of the bibliographies in the Encyclopedia of the Early Church ed. Angeli Di Bernardino, translated by Adrian Walford (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992).<br />71. Griggs, Early Egyptian Christianity, 45.<br />72. It should be mentioned that Griggs has excavated some of the more important sites for the study of early Christianity in Egypt, especially in the Fayum, and has himself discovered some of the papyri.<br />71. Ibid., citing Walter Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy, xxii.<br />74. Ibid., 32-33.<br />75. Ibid., 80, 82.<br />76. Ibid., 33.<br />77. Ibid, 83.<br />78. Ibid, 45-116 passim.<br />79. Griggs all but states the LDS view when he writes, "As was the situation elsewhere in early Christianity, the real threat to believers was considered to be from within the organization. Church members who had turned from the true faith and were in rebellion (the meaning of the Greek word apostasia) were a much greater threat to the Church than were external forces." He follows this statement with an early quotation that "identifies the real apostates with those who have ecclesiastical authority." Ibid., 85.<br />80. Because appeals to the early Church for the doctrine of theosis (deification) are well-known we have chosen not to include it in this study. Instead we chose to describe two lesser known examples. It should be noted, however, that LDS research on the topic is more extensive than merely reading the Fathers through. The most in depth study of theosis from a Latter-day Saint perspective is Keith Norman, "Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology" (Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1980).<br />81. William J. Hamblin, "Aspects of an Early Christian Initiation Ritual," in By Study And Also By Faith 1:211.<br />82. On the significance of the Secret Gospel of Mark for Latter-day Saints cf. Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991), 99-101.<br />83. See David L. Paulsen, "Early Christian Belief in a Corporeal Deity: Origen and Augustine as Reluctant Witnesses," Harvard Theological Review 83 no. 2 (1990): 106. Also see Kim Paffenroth's reply ("Paulsen on Augustine: An Incorporeal or monanthropomorphic God?") and Paulsen's rejoinder ("Reply to Kim Paffenroth's Comment") in Harvard Theolgoical Review 86 no. 2 (1993): 233-239. See also David Paulsen, "Must God Be Incorporeal?" Faith and Philosophy 6 no. 1 (Jan. 1989): 76-87.<br />84. Recently Stephen E. Robinson has written, "Often Evangelicals assume that we LDS accept the Book of Mormon in place of the Bible, this is incorrect. There isn't a single verse of the Bible that I do not personally accept and believe, although I do reject the interpretive straitjacket imposed on the Bible by the Hellenized church after the apostles passed from the scene." Blomberg and Robinson, How Wide the Divide?, 59.<br />85. Ibid., 55.<br />86. The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (1982): Esp. articles VIII, XIII, XIV, XV.<br />87. Avraham Gileadi, ed., Israel's Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988).<br />88. The LDS essays are Avraham Gileadi, "The Davidic Covenant: A Theological Basis for Corporate Protection;" Stephen D. Ricks, "The Prophetic Literality of Tribal Reconstruction," and John M. Lundquist, "Temple, Covenant, and Law in the Ancient Near East and in the Hebrew Bible."<br />89. The quotation of Stephen D. Ricks' essay "The Prophetic Literality of Tribal Reconstruction" appears in Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993), 226 n. 11.<br />90. Ricks' article is significant because a literal regathering of Israel to the Promised land was predicted by Joseph Smith. [See The Teachings of Joseph Smith ed. Larry E. Dahl and Donald Q. Cannon (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 329.] In light of the importance temples, covenants and gospel laws play in Mormon religious life it should be apparent why Lundquist would focus his study on this topic. Gileadi's essay also ties in with his LDS theology with respect to proxy salvation.<br />91. Three recent examples of unwitting quotation can be seen in Mark F. Rooker, "Dating Isaiah 40-66: What Does the Linguistic Evidence Say?" Westminster Theological Journal 58 no. 2 (Fall 1996): 307 n. 15 (referencing a study on language drift in biblical Hebrew by William J. Adams and L. LaMar Adams); A. Boyd Luter and Michelle V. Lee, "Philippians as Chiasmus: Key to the Structure, Unity and Theme Questions," New Testament Studies 41 no. 1 (Jan. 1995): 99 n. 34 (referencing John W. Welch's book on chiasmus, which, incidentally, has an entire chapter on chiasmus in the Book of Mormon); and, Randall Price, Secrets of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1996), 115 (citing Avraham Gileadi's work on Isaiah).<br />92. As the author of many studies in this area, his command of the literature is demonstrated in John W. Welch, ed., A Biblical Law Bibliography, Toronto Studies in Theology, no. 51 (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1990).<br />93. See especially John W. Welch, "Chiasmus in the New Testament," in Chiasmus in Antiquity, 211-249.<br />94. Stephen D. Ricks, "The Magician as Outsider: The Evidence of the Hebrew bible," in New Perspectives on Ancient Judaism ed. Paul V. M. Flesher (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990), 125-134. This study is significant because Ricks' conclusions could be used in a cumulative argument seeking to vindicate Joseph Smith's use of magic.<br />95. See note 18.<br />96. For one example, see Richard Lloyd Anderson, Understanding Paul (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1983).<br />97. See the following LDS authored entries in the Anchor Bible Dictionary: Egypt, History of (Graeco-Roman); Egyptian, the (person); Sayings of Jesus, Oxyrhynchus; Souls, Preexistence of; Truth, Gospel of [S.K. Brown]; Khirbet Kerak Ware [S.J. Pfann {sic}]; Jaakobah; Jaareshia; Jaasu; Jaaziah; Jaaziel; Names, Hypocoristic; Names, Theophoric [D.M. Pike]; Abortion in Antiquity; Sheba (Person); Sheba (Queen of) [S. D. Ricks]; Adam, The Testament of; Baruch, Book of 4; Joseph, Prayer of [S.E. Robinson]; Arabah; Shur, Wilderness of; Sin, Wilderness of; Zin, Wilderness of [D.R. Seely]; Rephidim; Succoth [J.H. Seely].<br />98. We use the term "lay person" loosely when referring to Mormons who are not scholars. Technically all Mormons are laity.<br />99. James White, "Of Cities and Swords: The Impossible Task of Mormon Apologetics," Christian Research Journal (Summer, 1996): 28-35.<br />100. John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Behind the Mask of Mormonism: From Its Early Schemes to Its Modern Deceptions (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992).<br />101. Ibid., 452.<br />102. Not only is there no serious interaction with Mormon scholarship in this book, what little there is, as frequently cited second hand from Jerald and Sandra Tanner. A cursory reading of the endnotes makes this abundantly clear. It appears that Ankerberg and Weldon, far from willing to spend thousands of man-hours and thousands of dollars on the issue, were also quite unwilling to spend a few dollars or a few hours reading a few of the pertinent books themselves.<br />103. Ibid., 453.<br />104. Ibid. See Brent Lee Metcalfe, ed., New Approaches to the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993). It has become common for evangelicals to defer to this book. That is quite disturbing. The authors of this volume are, for the most part, thorough-going naturalists. The methodology they employ to dismantle traditional views of the Book of Mormon could equally be used to attack the Bible. David P. Wright, one of the contributors to the work, writes, "This, by the way, shows that the conclusions here about the Book of Mormon cannot be used to funnel Mormons into fundamentalist Christianity. It is the <br />height of methodological inconsistency to think that critical method of study can be applied to the Book of Mormon and that its results can be accepted while leaving the Bible exempted from critical study" (p. 212 n. 105, emphasis added). We are left wondering as to how closely Ankerberg and Weldon (among others) have read this book which they so enthusiastically endorse.<br />105. See Rodney Stark, "The Rise of a New World Faith," Review of Religious Research 26 no. 1 (September, 1984): 18-27. Stark originally estimated 265 million Mormons by 2080.<br />[Individual copies of Trinity Journal can be purchased for $7.00 (in the U.S.) or $8.00 (for overseas) each. A one year subscription (two issues) is 14.00 (U.S.) and 16.00 (overseas). In a few months, Trinity Journal hopes offer the opportunity of downloading individual articles for $2.00. - Trinity Journal, 2065 Half Day Road, Deerfield, IL 60015, U.S.A. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1142258165272521722006-03-14T09:50:00.000-08:002006-03-16T16:26:23.976-08:00New, Deadlier Sins<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/1600/Sins2.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/320/Sins2.jpg" border="0" alt="The Ten Deadly Sins of Mormonism" /></a><br />Before we could <a href="http://www.google.com" target="_blank">Google</a>, we guessed.<br /><br />As a result, personal remembrances, public addresses, newspaper articles, and college term papers were error-prone and inevitably naive.<br /><br />Which accounts for BRM's <a href="http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6770&x=50&y=6" target="_blank">vague recollection</a> of the seven deadly sins. <br /><br />Now that we can <a href="http://www.wikipedia.org/" target="_blank">Wiki the World's Wisdom</a>, we can afford to be a bit more confident about our assertions. To wit:<br /><br />Catholicism's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins" target="_blank">Seven Deadly Sins is a faulty and incomplete list.</a> BRM was correct in hoping <span class="fullpost">the Saints were unfamiliar with it.<br /><br />Let us examine and correct the list:<ul><li><strong>Pride</strong>. Since <a href="http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1989.htm/ensign%20may%201989.htm/beware%20of%20pride.htm" target="_blank">ETB's 1989 Conference address</a>, Pride has headed the list of popular Deadly LDS Sins. On this one, the Saints and the Catholics agree.<br /><li><strong>Envy</strong>. We propose that Envy is merely a subset of a greater sin: <strong>Ingratitude</strong>. Latter-day Saints believe that <a href="http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1996.htm/ensign%20december%201996.htm/first%20presidency%20message%20gratitude%20as%20a%20saving%20principle.htm" target="_blank">gratitude is a saving principle </a>of the gospel; the correlary to that position is that ingratitude (including envy of other people's blessings) is a damning one.<br /><li><strong>Anger</strong>. Psychiatry agrees: Anger is a secondary emotion, a cover for something else. Anger serves just one purpose: manipulation and <a href="http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1989.htm/ensign%20july%201989.htm/unrighteous%20dominion%20.htm" target="_blank"><strong>Unrighteous Dominion</strong></a>. It is unrighteous dominion (seeking to control and manipulate others), not anger itself, that is the true sin. Frankly, if anger were <em>ineffective </em>in controlling people, it would be merely silly. And we'd call it what it truly is: A tantrum.<br /><li><strong>Sloth</strong>. In our <a href="http://www.lds.org/newsroom/showpackage/0,15367,3899-1--34-2-550,00.html" target="_blank">lovely Deseret</a>, we revere industry, cooperation, and putting our collective shoulder to the wheel. We have no truck with laziness. And yet. We perceive that laziness, sloth, is simply an adjunct to the larger sin: <a href="http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2000.htm/ensign%20november%202000.htm/the%20enemy%20within.htm" target="_blank"><strong>Complacency</strong></a>. With complacency does the Adversary "pacify and lull them away into carnal security...wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion." (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/28/21,24-25#21">2 Ne. 28:21, 24-25</a>) <br /><li><strong>Greed</strong>. Greed is a stupid sin, a character defect. But is it a deadly one? Greed -- <a href="http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/index.html" target="_blank">Winona Ryder's shoplifting</a> is the classic example -- is the sign of an unbalanced personality. The drive to possess more, more than what one earns or needs, is part of a larger sin: <strong>Faithlessness</strong>. Faithlessness is the expectation that this life is all you've got, so get everything you can before you die. It's manifest as one-upsmanship, hoarding, theft, refusal to share, selfishness, and, yes, greed. Elder Maxwell's <a href="http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2002.htm/ensign%20may%202002.htm/consecrate%20thy%20performance.htm">2002 address on consecration</a> is instructive.<br /><li><strong>Gluttony</strong>. Overindulgence a sin? It ain't on the temple recommend question list. But in 1990, when he was first counselor to the Prophet, President Hinkley seemed to suggest it ought to be. <blockquote>"Is observance of the Word of Wisdom necessary? The Brethren have long felt that it certainly must be. Observance of the Word of Wisdom is concerned with the care of one’s body, which, the Lord has assured, is of itself a temple, a tabernacle of the spirit. He has said, 'Yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.'” (Gordon B. Hinckley, “<a href="http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1990.htm/ensign%20may%201990.htm/keeping%20the%20temple%20holy.htm">Keeping the Temple Holy</a>,” Ensign, May 1990, 49).</blockquote> The larger sin, then, isn't gluttony. It's <strong>Defiling Holy Places</strong>.<br /><li><strong>Lust</strong>. The <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/3/19#19">natural man is an enemy to God</a>. We come to this earth to learn self-mastery. Which is why we say: Lust isn't a separate sin. It falls squarely under the heading of Defiling Holy Places, just like gluttony. (Besides, within the bounds of marriage, lust is a gift. It promotes unity.) Which brings us to:<br /><li><strong>Contention</strong>. It ain't on the Catholic list. It should be. Another purpose to mortality is learning to live in harmony and unity with God and one another. Disunity, disharmony, refusal to forgive, evil-speaking one another. It's all a deadly sin. Don't argue with us! Elder Nelson's talk on <a href="http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1989.htm/ensign%20may%201989.htm/the%20canker%20of%20contention.htm" target="_blank">contention</a> will persuade you of the truth of our position. And if that doesn't work, try President Monson's talk on <a href="http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2002.htm/ensign%20may%202002.htm/hidden%20wedges.htm" target="_blank">Hidden Wedges</a>.<br /><li><strong>Pessimism</strong>. "“Cynics do not contribute, skeptics do not create, doubters do not achieve." So says GBH, while urging upon the Saints a "<a href="http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/NewEra/2001.htm/new%20era%20july%202001.htm/words%20of%20the%20prophet%20%20the%20spirit%20of%20optimism.htm">Spirit of Optimism</a>." So quit 'yer dooms-dayin' and your belly-achin'. The Prophet said so.<br /><li><strong>Obession</strong>. Am I perfect? (Sex. Sex. Sex.) If I'm imperfect, will I burn in hell? (Eat. Eat. Eat.) Am I a little more perfect than my visiting teacher? (Porn. Porn. Porn.) Am I thin enough? (Sports. Sports. Sports.) Is my house clean enough? (Chat. Chat. Chat.) Stop it! We're an equal-opportunity nag: Women, stop obsessing over the superficial. Men, stop your stupid addictions. Both habits keep you away from the profound holiness that comes of contemplating God, rather than obsessing over your own (or someone else's) body parts.<br /><li><strong>Deception</strong>. <a href="http://ldessays.blogspot.com/2005/03/liar-liar-but-no-hell-fire.html" target="_blank">Lying and stealing aren't always wrong</a>. But deception with the intent to cover sin or gain an unfair advantage is. Thus, during a natural catastrophe, you may scrounge bread to keep your children alive. But under no circs may you embezzle money from your boss or shoplift Manolo Blahnik shoes. You may lie to a rapist about the whereabouts of your daughter; you may not phony up your resume to get an advantage over people who are honest about their credentials. The former is sad, but necessary. The latter is wickedness.</ul>Our proposed list of Mormonism's seriously deadly sins, then, is:<ul><li>Pride.<br /><li>Ingratitude.<br /><li>Unrighteous Dominion.<br /><li>Complacency.<br /><li>Faithlessness.<br /><li>Defiling Holy Places.<br /><li>Contention. <br /><li>Pessimism.<br /><li>Obession.<br /><li>Deception.</ul>Shall we discuss it over a cup of tea?<br /><br />--<strong>The Practical Mormon</strong></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1142229531923903712006-03-12T21:51:00.000-08:002006-03-14T10:20:19.470-08:00Come Listen to a Story 'bout a Man named Bruce<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/1600/mightymouse.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/200/mightymouse.jpg" border="0" alt="Mighty Mouse: Here I Come to Save the Day!" /></a><br />Back in the day, when <strong>The Practical Mormon</strong> was just a wee BYU student who relied on a weekly paycheck from the <a href="http://www.harktheherald.com/" target="_blank"><em>Daily Herald</em></a> to keep us in <a href="http://www.nissinfoods.com/top.htm" target="_blank">Top Raman</a>, we thought to attend a 14-stake student fireside that ended up having far-reaching consequences.<br /><br />Inveterate note-takers, us, we came with pen and notepad in hand, and scribbled furiously as Elder Bruce Redd McConkie delivered his now-infamous "<a href="http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6770&x=50&y=6" target="_blank">Seven Deadly Heresies</a>" speech. <br />You might be familiar with the speech because of its controversial positions on <span class="fullpost"> the progression of God, progression between kingdoms, and the irreconcilability of evolution and religion. <br /><br />If so, you'll find the remainder of our tale amusing...Ironic, even. <br /><br />When we arrived at work the following day, ready to wax galleys and slice tips off our fingers in the page comp department, the newsroom was in a panic. Apparently, rumors had spread that Elder McConkie's speech had been controversial...and the editors hadn't sent a reporter to cover it. <br /><br />We'd read our share of comix. We threw on our cape, removed our eyeglasses, and volunteered to write the story. (Or did we <a href="http://www.thekryptonian.com/archive/index.php/t-4968.html" target="_blank">remove the cape and don the eyeglasses</a>? Never mind.) The <em>Herald</em> got its story (scooping both the <a href="http://deseretnews.com" target="_blank"><em>Deseret News</em></a> and the <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/" target="_blank"><em>Trib</em></a>), and the next day, the phone calls started. <br /><br />Was it evolution that prompted our readers to call? Adam/God? Naaah.<br /><br />The phone calls were coming from nearly every Protestant minister in Utah County, each of whom was demanding equal time to rebut Elder McConkie's assertion that man can't be "saved by some kind of lip service." <br /><br />It was a terrific row! Editors were arguing with ministers; a delegation of clerics even threatened to storm the newsroom. There was name-calling, a threatened lawsuit (as though we had some legal equal-time obligation), and a flury of letters to the editor (quite an accomplishment in a pre-email world). <br /><br /><a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/1600/McConkie.jpg"><img style="cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/200/McConkie.jpg" border="0" alt="Elder Bruce R. McConkie" align="right"/></a>In short order, your hero, <strong>the Practical Mormon</strong>, got promoted out of the back shop into the newsroom as the <em>Herald</em>'s Religion Editor. For which we'll always remember Elder McConkie in a favorable light.<br /><br />--<strong>The Practical Mormon</strong></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1141921209152538902006-03-10T06:23:00.000-08:002006-03-14T13:31:58.150-08:00Mormon Critics Can Quit Now<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/1600/Query.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/200/Query.jpg" border="0" alt="Got Questions? Apologetics Has Answers" /></a><br />Funny thing about concerns over LDS doctrine: There's an answer to every question. The best source for answers to most questions: Personal revelation and a thorough understanding of the scriptures. <br /><br />When you're in a hurry, though, give <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=apologetics">apologetics </a> a try.<br /><br />What follows is a complete list of the leading LDS apologetics resources available online. Bookmark it, if you wish, because it'll grow. <ul><li><a href="http://farms.byu.edu/"><strong>FARMS</strong></a>. The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. It's housed at BYU, giving it the imprimatur of the Church. The quality of its books and articles is inconsistent, but improving. Click <a href="http://farms.byu.edu/authors.php">this link</a> to see articles from the 300 or so well respected authors who have contributed to FARMS.<br /><li><a href="http://www.fairlds.org/" target="_blank"><strong>FAIR</strong></a>. Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (fairlds.org). The avocational version of FARMS. Click the <a href="http://www.fairlds.org/apol/" target="_blank">Topical Guide link</a> for links to the the 2000+ apologetics articles housed at this site.<span class="fullpost"><li><a href="http://www.shields-research.org" target="_blank"><strong>SHIELDS</strong></a>. Scholarly & Historical Information Exchange for Latter-day Saints (shields-research.org). Sort of the hobbyist's version of FAIR. Most of the <a href="http://www.shields-research.org/ArticleIndex/Artindex.html" target="_blank">articles on this site</a> consist of correspondence and reprints of historical apologetics.<br /><li><a href="http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/"><strong>LDS FAQ</strong></a>. Jeff Lindsay's lengthy list of questions with well documented answers.<br /><li><a href="http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/" target="_blank"><strong>LDS FAQ</strong></a>. Unlike the same-named site above, this one has sort of semi-official status as a product of <a href="http://byustudies.byu.edu/" target="_blank">BYU Studies</a>. <br /><li><a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/EC.html" target="_blank"><strong>Early Christianity and Mormonism</strong></a>. Barry Bickmore's not-to-be-missed collection of articles on apostacy, cosmology, salvation, temples, biblical evidences and more.<br /><li><a href="http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/fallacyb.htm" target="_blank"><strong>Fallacy Alert</strong></a>. Part of Wade Englund's <a href="http://www.aros.net/%7Ewenglund/Anti.htm" target="_blank">Defending the Faith Against the Adversaries</a> site, currently on hiatus.<br /><li><a href="http://www.mormonfortress.com/apolog1.html"><strong>Mormon Fortress</strong></a>. Apologist Michael R. Ash, who makes a strong argument in favor of apologetics in <a href="http://www.meridianmagazine.com/lineuponline/040318harquestions.html">this Meridian Magazine article</a>, has some interesting original material.<br /><li><a href="http://www.lightplanet.com/response/index.html" target="_blank"><strong>Response to Mormon Critics</strong></a>. Part of John and Jenny Walsh's larger <a href="http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/" target="_blank">All About Mormons</a> site -- the best LDS resource on the Internet, perhaps even including the <a href="http://www.lds.org" target="_blank">official Church site</a>. Of particular note are the <a href="http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/contents.htm" target="_blank">One-Minute Answers</a> and the <a href="http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/index.htm" target="_blank">Overview of Criticism</a> sections of this site. <br /><li><a href="http://frontpage2000.nmia.com/~nahualli/LDStopics.htm" target="_blank"><strong>LDS Topics</strong></a>. The best entry page for Brant Gardner's mind-expanding collection of Quetzalcoatl research, Book of Mormon commentary, essays and papers, and book reviews.<br /><li><a href="http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id106.htm" target="_blank"><strong>Defending the Faith</strong></a>. Michael T. Griffith, a writer for Horizon Publishers, answers critics in this sizable collection of essays.<br /><li><a href="http://home.rmci.net/cbolton/LDS.HTM#apol" target="_blank"><strong>Doctrinal Essays and Links</strong></a>. Writer Chris Bolton responds to various criticisms of the LDS faith.<br /><li><a href="http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/mormonis.htm" target="_blank"><strong>Mormonism Researched</strong></a>. Kerry Shirts' site is in dire need of a graphic artist (Ironic, since Kerry IS an artist), but despite its amaturish layout and often combative tone, the content is generally enlightening.<br /><li><a href="http://uk.geocities.com/irishlds87/bomquest.html" target="_blank"><strong>Book of Mormon Questions: The Rebuttal</strong></a>. One Robert Boylan, a member of the Church in Ireland, responds to questions raised by RPCman at LDS-Mormon.com.<br /><li><a href="http://www.lds.org/newsroom/mistakes/0,15331,3885-1,00.html"><strong>Comments on the News</strong></a>. The Church's official response to inaccurate reports in various media outlets.</ul>Any additions? Keep us informed!<br /><br />--<strong>The Practical Mormon</strong></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1141864428880547092006-03-09T00:01:00.000-08:002006-03-20T10:18:21.103-08:00Insider's View of Mormon Origins is a Stupid Book<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/1600/tree.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/200/tree.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />Why mince words? Grant H. Palmer's book <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/asin/1560851570/thelibrarofautho/" target="_blank">An Insider's View of Mormon Origins</a></i> killed a tree. And <a href="http://www.bartleby.com/104/119.html" target="_blank">the tree</a> contained more wisdom.<br /><br />A few examples of the wit and wisdom of <em>Insider's View</em>:<br /><span class="fullpost"> <ul><li>"<em>[D]iscussions at church rarely rise above the seminary level</em>." No kidding? Look around! We have meetings chock fulla newbies who barely know how to pull up their own socks. So engage in discussions outside of church, like the rest of us do. That's why God invented friends.<br /><li><em>"Our discussions are usually an inch deep...We seem to have a lingering desire for simple religion." </em> Speak for yourself, bucko. Ever been to a place called The Internet, where we like our discussion a mile deep and an inch wide? How 'bout a bookstore? The Scriptures? The Temple? Prayer? Those of us who need intellectual stimulation somehow manage to find it without resorting to evil-speaking our fellow Saints.<br /><li><em>"We never learn in church that..."</em> (..followed by a list of minor controversies that have nothing whatsoever to do with salvation or Jesus Christ.) So? We also never learn in church that red clashes with orange, or that long-haired cats get nasty hairballs. Church meetings have a function. We grownups get that, and use the other 165 hours each week contemplating, praying over, studying, discussing and writing about minutae such as limited BOM geography, the multiplicity of First Vision accounts, and sterilization methods for mountain streamwater.<br /><li>"<em>I have two purposes in writing. One is to introduce church members who have not followed the developments in church history during the last thirty years...</em>" Yeah, THAT'S who's going to pick up your book!<br /><li>"<em>Second, I would like church members to understand historians and religion teachers like myself. When we talk, we tend to avoid superlatives...</em>" blah-blah-blah. In other words, "I'm a pompous twit who is intellectually superior to you gullible fools."</ul>Then comes 260+ pages of nattering on, in the most obtuse way, about things well understood, long understood, by every Saint with an IQ over 89. Nothing new. Nothing that hasn't been asked -- and answered -- a hundred times by a <a href="http://ldessays.blogspot.com/2006/03/mormon-critics-can-quit-now.html">hundred different intelligent scholars</a>. Nothing more than a yawn-inducing rant about how some of the pictures we show in Junior Sunday School contain historical inaccuracies. My oh my!<br><br />Yeah, so?<br /><br />Then comes the topper. After doing everything possible to destroy the faith of new and prospective Latter-day Saints (without even touching on the vastly more numerous faith-killers that must needs be swallowed by mainstream Christianity), Brother Palmer has the audicity to write:<br /><ul><li>"I cherish Joseph Smith's teaching on many topics...[But] the issue of his credibility in differentiating between history and allegory [makes me want to write books telling the Saints they're stupider than me.]" Please.</ul> If Brother Palmer had been a faithful Saint, his book would have covered the same material, and suggested ways of <a href="http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_antis.shtml">reconciling apparent discrepencies</a>. <br /><br />It's clear, though, that his primary motivation was to create a generation of Mormons who stop embarrassing him with their faith. <br /><br />Dude. You've already left the church spiritually and intellectually. Cut the strings! You certainly don't wanna be surrounded by folks whom you consider your intellectual inferiors. So buh-bye already!<br /><br />-- <strong>The Practical Mormon</strong><br /><br /><em>Addendum (20 Mar 2006): Just ran across <a href="http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=514">this excellent review</a> by Louis Midgley, which makes many of the same points with much more finesse.</em></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1141840441044898352006-03-08T09:41:00.000-08:002006-03-08T11:01:49.910-08:00You Can Brush My Hair...<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/1600/byubarbie.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/200/byubarbie.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><font size=3 color="green"><strong>Announcement:</strong></font><br /><br />Tomorrow, March 9, is our forty-seventh birthday?<br /><br />Yes, we're speaking in the plural. By "our," we mean both <strong>The Practical Mormon </strong>and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie" target="_blank">Barbie</a>.<br /><br />True fact!<br /><br />Another true fact: The older we get, the younger Barbie looks. Of course, <span class="">she's had infinitely more plastic surgery.<br /><br />Still, <span class="fullpost">when it comes to choosing a hero, <strong>TPM</strong> is definitely your better bet. Unlike Barbie, we don't <a href="http://la.christianpost.com/article/society/115/section/cwa.says.barbie.website.promotes.gender.confusion/1.htm">promote gender confusion</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/aqua/barbiegirl.html">Life in plastic; it's fantastic!</a><br /><br />-- <strong>The Practical Mormon</strong><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11419468.post-1141682358039603082006-03-06T13:51:00.000-08:002006-03-14T12:56:31.050-08:00Forty-something<a href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/1600/I-40.jpg"><img style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="40 Thoughts about Forty" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4489/1/200/I-40.jpg" border="0" /></a><br />Welcome to our Lenten observance.<br /><br />We've been fascinated recently by the recurrence of the number "forty" in Biblical -- and specifically, Mormon -- theology. Here's the complete list, followed by some "hmmmm" theological and natural occurences of the number forty.<br /><br /><ul><li><font color="#ff0000;">Noah </font>experienced forty days of rain with the flood. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/7/4#4" target="_blank">Gen. 7:4</a>, etc.)<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Isaac</font> was forty years old when he married Rebekah. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/25/20#20" target="_blank">Gen. 25:20</a>)<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Esau </font>was forty years old when he married Judith and Bashemath. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/26/34#34" target="_blank">Gen. 26:34</a>)<br /><li>Embalming (specifically, the embalming of <font color="#ff0000;">Jacob</font>) required forty days. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/50/3#3" target="_blank">Gen. 50:3</a>)<span class="fullpost"><br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Moses </font>visited Israelites at age forty, and began his ministry forty years later (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/acts/7/23#23" target="_blank">Acts 7:23</a>, <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/acts/7/30#30" target="_blank">7:30</a>)<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Children of Israel</font> wandered the desert for forty years. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/num/14/33#33" target="_blank">Num. 14:33</a>, etc.)<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Moses </font>was on the mount for forty days. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/34/28#28" target="_blank">Ex. 34:28</a>)<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Spies </font>sent to land of Canaan returned after forty days. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/num/13/25#25" target="_blank">Num. 13:25</a>)<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Double "forty"</font> reference in <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/num/14/34#34" target="_blank">Num. 14:34</a><br /><li>Punishment for the wicked: Forty stripes (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/deut/25/3#3" target="_blank">Deut. 25:3</a>, which we take as a Messianic reference, but see also <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/2_cor/11/24#24" target="_blank">2 Cor 11:24</a>, wherein <font color="#ff0000;">Paul</font> is regularly beaten with forty stripes)<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;" target="_blank">Joshua </font>forty years old when he was sent to spy (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/josh/14/7#7" target="_blank">Josh. 14:7</a>)<br /><li>At the time of the Judges, a break from warfare was described as the land <font color="#ff0000;" target="_blank">having "rest </font>[for] forty years." (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/judg/3/11#11" target="_blank">Judg. 3:11</a>, <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/judg/5/31#31" target="_blank">Judg. 5:31</a>, <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/judg/8/28#28" target="_blank">Judg. 8:28</a>)<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Children of Israel </font>did evil, and were therefore "<font color="#000000;">delivered into the hand </font>of the Philistines forty years." (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/judg/13/1#1" target="_blank">Judges 13:1</a>)<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Eli </font>judges Israel forty years before his death. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/1_sam/4/18#18" target="_blank">1 Sam. 4:18</a>)<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Goliath </font>harrangued Saul's army forty days. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/1_sam/17/16#16" target="_blank">1 Sam 17:16</a>)<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Saul's </font>reign was forty years (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/acts/13/21#21">Acts 13:21</a>)<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Ish-bosheth </font>was forty years old when he began his reign. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/2_sam/2/10#10" target="_blank">2 Sam 2:10</a>)<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">David's </font>reign was forty years. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/2_sam/5/4#4" target="_blank">2 Sam 5:4</a>, <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/1_chr/29/27#27">1 Chr. 29:27</a>)<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Absalom</font> spent forty years conspiring against David. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/2_sam/15/7#7" target="_blank">2 Sam 15:7</a>)<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Solomon's </font>reign was forty years. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/1_kgs/11/42#42" target="_blank">1 Kings 11:42</a>, <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/2_chr/9/30#30" target="_blank">2 Chr. 9:30</a>)<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Elijah </font>fasted on Horeb forty days. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/1_kgs/19/8#8" target="_blank">1 Kings 19:8</a>)<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Hazael </font>brought to Elisha a gift of "forty camels’ burden." (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/2_kgs/8/9#9" target="_blank">2 Kings 8:9</a>)<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Joash/Josiah I's </font>reign was forty years. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/2_kgs/12/1#1" target="_blank">2 Kings 12:1</a>, <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/2_chr/24/1#1" target="_blank">2 Chr. 24:1</a>)<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Jeremiah's </font>term as prophet: <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/gsj/jeremiah" target="_blank">forty years</a><br /><li>The <font color="#ff0000;">48</font><font color="#ff0000;">0 years </font>from the Exodus to the building of the temple are counted as <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/1_chr/6/3-8#3" target="_blank">twelve 40-year generations</a><br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Ezekiel </font>bears the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days, Egypt desolate forty years (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/ezek/4/6#6" target="_blank">Ezek. 4:6</a>, <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/ezek/29/11-13#11">Ezek. 29:11-13</a><br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Jonah </font>warns that Ninevah would be overthrown in forty days. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/jonah/3/4#4">Jonah 3:4</a>)<br /><li>Savior <font color="#ff0000;">Jesus Christ </font>fasts forty days (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/4/2#2">Matt. 4:2</a>, <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/mark/1/13#13">Mark 1:13</a>, <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/luke/4/2#2">Luke 4:2</a>)<br /><li>The time from the <font color="#ff0000;">crucifixion to the resurrection </font>was forty hours<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Resurrected Christ</font> ministers for forty days until His ascension. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/acts/1/3#3">Acts 1:3</a>)<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Nephites </font>separate themselves from Lamanites at forty-year mark (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/5/34#34" target="_blank">2 Ne. 5:34</a>)<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Ammon </font>et al wander forty days before finding Lehi-Nephi. (<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/mosiah/7/4-5#4" target="_blank">Mosiah 7:4-5</a>)<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Temple lot </font>is <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/104/43#43" target="_blank">forty rods long</a> and twelve (another significant number) wide.</li></ul>Of additional note:<ul><li>The Jewish holiday of <font color="#ff0000;"><em>Teshuvah </em></font>(Repentence) is forty days.<br /><li>The <em><font color="#ff0000;">mikveh </font></em>(<a href="http://www.revelations.org.za/Bap.htm#Should%20Baptism%20be%20performed%20at%20all">baptismal font</a>) must be filled with <a href="http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_o/bl_simmons_forty.htm" target="_blank">forty measures of water</a>.<br /><li>Catholics observe a forty-day <font color="#ff0000;">Lent</font>.<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Human </font>gestation is forty weeks.<br /><li>There was a forty-year period between the start of Jesus's ministry and the <font color="#ff0000;">destruction of Israel </font>(AD 70).<br /><li><font color="#ff0000;">Kabbalists </font>propose that a person isn't competent/mature enough to study the mysteries of God <a href="http://www.digital-brilliance.com/kab/faq.htm#OverForty" target="_blank">until he reaches the age of 40</a>. (NB: Scripturally, a man was full-grown at age forty [<a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/2/11#11" target="_blank">Exodus 2:11</a>; <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/acts/7/23#23" target="_blank">Acts 7:23</a>; cf. <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/josh/14/7#7" target="_blank">Joshua 14:7</a>; <a href="http://scriptures.lds.org/2_sam/2/10#10" target="_blank">2 Samuel 2:10</a>]).<br /><li>Some <font color="#ff0000;">Chinese </font>traditions agree: "Soon I will be 40: 'The year when you are no longer bewildered.'" --Beijing Businessman Zhang Wu, an interviewee on a <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/red/etc/script.html" target="_blank">PBS Frontline special</a>. 2/13/2003.<br /></ul>We're not the first writers, of course, to note the theological significance of the number 40, though we suspect we're the first to compile a list this complete. Others who've made interesting comments on the phenon:<ul><li><a href="http://www.creation-answers.com/forty.htm" target="_blank">Creationists who believe </a>the forty-day <font color="#ff0000;">calendar </font>is divinely appointed<br /><li><a href="http://www.christcenteredmall.com/teachings/symbolism/numbers.htm" target="_blank">Numerologists who attach significance </a>to specific biblical <font color="#ff0000;">numbers</font>.<br /><li><a href="http://www.biblestudy.org/bibleref/numscript/40.html" target="_blank">Biblical numerologists</a> interpret the <font color="#ff0000;">number forty</font>.</ul>So, is forty significant? Ready to observe LDS Lent? What say ye?<br /><br />-- <strong>The Practical Mormon</strong></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0