Allred and White: Is the Jesus of Mormonism the Jesus of the Bible? (Yes)

I just found out that there will be a dialogue (though guessing it will evolve/devolve [take your pick]) between Alma Allred and James R. White on the issue of Latter-day Saint Christology, a topic I have discussed quite a bit on this blog (why am I never invited to these debates/dialogues? oh well . . . ) One can do a search on terms such as “Christology” (click here) and other terms (e.g., “Trinity”) to find other articles on this topic on my blog. The facebook page for this event can be found here. It will be held at the University of Utah on 15th July.

Exegetically-speaking, as I have shown in many posts on this blog, “Mormon” Christology is “Biblical Christology”; if anyone is trying to foist a false Christology, it is James White and other Trinitarians who have to engage in eisegesis of the Bible and even uniquely LDS Scriptures (on White, to see his criminal handling and eisegesis of these issues, see, for example, here, here, and here; for a refutation of a the Isaiah texts he loves to go-to, see here and here, as well here which shows the book of Isaiah is not supportive of the Trinity concept; and let us not forget how White got schooled by Daniel McClellan as well as Daniel Peterson and Bill Hamblin in written debate and Hamblin/Peterson in a radio debate . . .). If/when White goes up against an informed opponent who also knows how to debate well, he tends to lose—badly; take Robert Sungenis, for instance (White has never fared well against Sungenis, even in a debate on papal infallibility in October 2000 [click here]; also see their debate on justification where Sungenis clearly refuted White's flavour of sola fide).

I just thought I would highlight Alma's blog, "Byteline." Alma does have a good grasp of issues such as LDS history and various fundamentalist groups. I did enjoy his beat-down of Bill McKeever (who lost--badly--a debate on LDS soteriology last year [see my review here]) and Eric Johnson on the First Vision of Joseph Smith (LINK):

I’m not sure whether it’s McKeever or Johnson at this point, but he says:

And this is where I have a problem with this statement: “indeed, differences similar to those in the first vision accounts exist in the multiple scriptural accounts of Paul’s [pause] vision.” I don’t believe that Paul had a [pause] vision on the road to Damascus. And what I mean by that is that I believe that Paul actually saw the person, the physical, resurrected, person of Jesus Christ. It was not in a [pause] vision as we understand visions usually to be [sic] does that make sense?
[Other host continues] …If he saw the Lord Jesus in a vision that would be different from what the other apostles experienced…
[First host] That’s the point.
[Other host] …I don’t think you can say it was just merely a vision.
[First host] I think this is why I think the statement here that the first vision accounts essay on LDS.org gets it wrong when they assume that what Paul experienced on the road to Damascus was merely a vision in the traditional understanding of the word. (Program of June 4, 2014)

And thus we see another example of critics of Mormonism who understand neither Mormonism nor the Bible. LDS perception is clearly not bound by “traditional” understanding which so often begins from a mistaken premise. Joseph Smith claimed that vision experiences were more profound than the physical sense of sight—indeed, that it “surpasses all understanding.”

The three witnesses of the Book of Mormon all claimed that they saw the gold plates in a vision. When some scoffed that a vision wasn’t a reality, Martin Harris answered by holding out his hand and saying, “do you see that hand? Are you sure you see it? Or are your eyes playing you a trick or something? No. Well as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the Angel and the plates.”

But is McKeever's and Johnson’s point valid—that Paul’s experience was not a vision?  All you need do is consult Paul’s description in Acts 26:19, where he says, “Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision.” 

The Greek word there is ὀπτασία—a vision--we get our word "optical" from the same root.

They spent most of the program asserting that Paul didn't have a vision and that Joseph Smith’s claim of a vision cannot be compared to Paul’s experience.  Well, the fact is, Paul’s experience was a vision and it compares very well with Joseph’s account.

They fault Joseph Smith’s later accounts for including material not mentioned in earlier versions.  Since they don’t seem to be aware of the version in Acts 26, I wonder if they’re aware that this version includes over 90 words attributed to Jesus that don’t appear in the earlier versions?

As expected, McKeever and Johnson’s arguments are without any exegetical merit; in fact, it lacks such (see my discussion of their failed attempt to critique Daniel Peterson on Alma 11).

Alma has also appeared a number of times on Jason Wallace’s “The Ancient Paths” programme (e.g., this episode; for Wallace, click here and here for examples of his ignorance of both the Bible and all things “Mormon”)  and has an article published by FARMS, a review of Norman Geisler’s essay, “Scripture” in the 1998 book, The Counterfeit Gospel of Mormonism. One can read the review here.