Why does the Doctrine of Covenants Contradict The Book of Mormon? Should it?

This is a response to a video by Dave Bartosiewicz, a former Latter-day Saint who is now an Evangelical Protestant. I refuted a previous video of his entitled, "How is the Book of Mormon, the Word of God, if it was ABRIDGED and Edited?"

The video I am now reviewing and critiquing is "Why does the Doctrine of Covenants Contradict The Book of Mormon? Should it?"

Incorrect Assumptions:

From the get-go, Bartosiewicz makes another of false assumptions and incorrect comments which reveals (1) his fundamentalist attitude towards the nature of Scripture and (2) ignorance of “Mormonism.”

For instance, he harps on about the Book of Mormon being the most correct book, and assumes, as he did in the previous video, that such means the “correctness” is associated with inerrancy and the like. As I stated in my previous review of his video on the Book of Mormon being an abridgement (linked above):

Finally, he harps on Joseph Smith's November 28, 1841 comment about the Book of Mormon being "the most correct of any book on earth" and then raises the issue of changes in the Book of Mormon. The changes in the Book of Mormon has been addressed in great detail, for instance, all 6 parts of Royal Skousen's Analysis of Textual Variants in the Book of Mormon (over 4,000 pages of text[!]) is available online here on the Mormon Interpreter Website (cf. FairMormon's discussion of this issue), let us examine the comment:

I spent the day in the council with the Twelve Apostles at the house of President Young, conversing with them upon a variety of subjects. Brother Joseph Fielding was present, having been absent four years on a mission to England. I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.

The Book of Mormon is the most correct book, not based on the issue of textual purity, but its doctrinal content (e.g., it has the most lucid discussions of Christ’s atonement [2 Nephi 2; 9; Mosiah 15; Alma 34; 42). Further evidence of eisegesis of this passage is proven by the fact that this was a year after the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon, an edition Joseph helped prepare, so obviously Joseph Smith was not talking about the “correctness” of the Book of Mormon being contingent upon its textual tenacity. 

He also engages in the common eisegesis of Isa 43:10 and similar passages to “prove” monotheism (see my exegesis of these passages here). In reality, Isaiah is speaking of Yahweh's supremacy, but is not denying the ontological existence of other gods in His midst. For instance, note the following:

 All nations before him are as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity. (Isa 40:17)

The Hebrew locution, "as nothing" translates כְּאַיִן, which is rendered correctly by the KJV (an alternative translation would be like/as nought [cf. the NASB; 1985 JPS Tanakh]). The same locution appears in Isa 41:11:

Behold, all they that were incensed against thee shall be shamed and confounded: they shall be as nothing (כְאַיִן); and they that strive with thee shall perish.

 Of course, this is a statement of the supremacy of Yahweh, not the denial of the ontological existence of nations apart from Israel.

In Isa 40:23, we read:

That bringeth the princes to nothing; he makes the judges of the earth as vanity.

Again, the term often translated as "nothing" or "nought" (Heb: אַיִן) is coupled with a pre-fixed preposition, in this instance, לְ ( לְאָיִן ). Again, the supremacy of Yahweh (and national Israel) is in view here, not the denial of the ontological existence of the princes in this verse who, obviously, have real existence, not imagined.

The term   אַיִן often means "insufficient" or impotent, even in "Deutero-Isaiah" (Isa 40-47). Note the following:

And Lebanon is not sufficient (אַיִן) to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient (אַיִן) for a burnt offering. (Isa 40:16)

Again, the impotency of Yahweh's (and Israel's) enemies are in view here; not a denial of their ontological existence.

To quote Daniel McClellan (who, in turn is paraphrasing some of the work of Michael S. Heiser):

Deutero-Isaiah is not denying the ontological existence of other deities; rather, he is denying their efficacy and legitimacy. The language used by Deutero-Isaiah and Deuteronomy (“I am and there is no other,” “there is none beside me,” etc.) is also used in reference to Babylon, Moab (Isa 47:8, 10), and Nineveh (Zeph 2:15). The vernacular is placed in the mouths of Israel’s opponents, but the point is clear: these cities are not denying the existence of other cities, but rather that they are at all relevant in comparison (see Ps 89:6 and Isa 40:25). Deuteronomy 32 provides further indication that this is the correct reading. In v. 21 YHWH states, “They made me jealous with a non-god (בלא־אל) . . . so I will make them jealous with a non-people (בלא־עם).” The nation being referenced (Assyria-Babylon) is not one that does not exist, but one that is inconsequential in the eyes of YHWH. That this is part of the same propaganda is supported by v. 39 (ואין אלהים עמדי) and by Isa 40:17: “All the nations are as nothing (כאין) before him, he considers them as less than nothing (מאפס) and deserted (ותהו).”

That the authors of this rhetoric in no way deny the existence of other deities is also made clear by the proximity of explicit mentions of other gods. Deut 32:8–9 and 43, for instance, mention the sons of El and command “all the gods” to bow before YHWH, respectively. In Deut 4:19 the gods of the nations are explicitly said to have been established by YHWH for the worship of the people of those nations. Divine council imagery is also present in Isaiah 40 and 45.

I recently posed this challenge to a Trinitarian critic of the LDS Church about these texts where Isaiah is speaking about Yahweh, which shows the theological and exegetical bind Trinitarians place themselves in if they appeal to such passages:

I am asking you which divine person is speaking. It is YHWH--in your view, is this the Father? Son? Spirit? If all three, why the singular personal pronouns and singular verbs? (unless you are a Modalist who views all three as a singular person .[I know you are not]).

 If you claim YHWH and the three persons of the Trinity are one and the same (some go down this route with these passages), then what about texts where Jesus is distinct from Yahweh? For e.g., in Psa 110:1, Yahweh speaks *l'adoni* (to my lord). Per the NT, Yahweh in this passage (when 109:1, LXX is quoted/alluded to) is the person of the Father while this second lord (adoni) is the Son (e.g., Mark 12:36f; Heb 1:13; cf. Paul's midrash-like expansion in 1 Cor 15:22-28), so unless you will posit that the Father, Son, and Spirit (YHWH) spoke to a second lord who is numerically distinct from this YHWH who is the person of the Son (which is nonsense), then one cannot go down this route unless one wishes to engage in question-begging; special pleading, and rejecting the identity of indiscernibles.

 While I disagree with his Unitarian conclusions, Jaco Van Zyl, speaking of Psa 110:1 in light of texts such as Isa 45:5, was pretty spot-on in the following:

 *Trinitarians like James White argue that Yahweh (Adonai) speaks to someone else who is also Adonai. However they want to look at it, this is troublesome even to Trinitarian theology: If Yahweh is 3-in-1 God, speaking to another Adonai adds between 1 and 3 to the existing 3, leaving us with between 4 and 6 Persons in one God. If, however, you add the second Adonai to the first, then Yahweh is 2 and not 3 Persons, isn’t He (or should I say they)?* (Jaco van Zyl, "Psalm 110:1 and the Status of the Second Lord--Trinitarian Arguments Challenged," in An E-Journal from The Radical Reformation: A Testimony to Biblical Unitarianism, pp. 51-60, here, p. 60).

 That the Bible affirms the ontological existence of (true) gods is affirmed in many places. Note, for instance, Deut 32:7-9.  The NRSV of this pericope reads:

Remember the days of old, consider the years long past; ask your father and he will inform you, Your elders will tell you. When the Most High gave nations their homes and set the divisions of man, he fixed the boundaries of peoples in relation to Israel's numbers. For the Lord's portion is his people, Jacob his own allotment.

One will note that this differs from the KJV; the Masoretic Text (MT) underlying the KJV OT reads "sons of Adam/Man," while the DSS has the reading "sons of god" or, as ANE scholars understand the term, "gods."

In the second edition of The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford, 2014), we read the following note on page 419:

Most High, or “Elyon,” is a formal title of El, the senior god who presided over the divine council in the Ugaritic literature of ancient Canaan. The reference thus invokes, as do other biblical texts, the Near Eastern convention of a pantheon of gods ruled by the chief deity (Pss. 82:1; 89:6-8). Israelite authors regularly applied El’s title to Israel’s God (Gen. 14:18-22; Num. 24:16; Pss. 46:5; 47:3). [with reference to the variant in the DSS “number of the gods”] makes more sense. Here, the idea is that the chief god allocates the nations to lesser deities in the pantheon. (A post-biblical notion that seventy angels are in charge of the world’s seventy nations echoes this idea.) Almost certainly, the unintelligible reading of the MT represents a “correction” of the original text (whereby God presides over other gods) to make it conform to the later standard of pure monotheism: There are no other gods! The polytheistic imagery of the divine council is also deleted in the Heb at 32:42; 33:2-3, 7.

One final example would be Gen 20:13.Firstly, a short Hebrew lesson. The term   אֱלֹהִים is irregular in that, while its form is plural, it can denote either a singular or plural Elohim (“G/god[s]”—not “human judges”) depending on the verb it is coupled with. For instance, in Gen 1:1, it is coupled with a verb in the second person singular, so Elohim is singular; however, there are many instances where it is coupled with a verb in the plural, denoting plural “G/gods” (e.g., Psa 82:6).

In Gen 20:13, the Hebrew reads (followed by my transliteration and translation of the text in red):

וַיְהִ֞י כַּאֲשֶׁ֧ר הִתְע֣וּ אֹתִ֗י אֱלֹהִים֘ מִבֵּ֣ית אָבִי֒ וָאֹמַ֣ר לָ֔הּ זֶ֣ה חַסְדֵּ֔ךְ אֲשֶׁ֥ר תַּעֲשִׂ֖י עִמָּדִ֑י אֶ֤ל כָּל־הַמָּקוֹם֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נָב֣וֹא שָׁ֔מָּה אִמְרִי־לִ֖י אָחִ֥י הֽוּא׃

Wyhy k'sr ht'w 'ty 'lhym mbbyt 'by ...

And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house...

Another way to render the pertinent phrase would be, "And it came to pass when (the) Gods caused me to wander from my father's house . . ."

Not only is this consistent with LDS theology, but also supports the creation story in the Book of Abraham. If it had been the singular 'God', it would have been ht'h 'lhym rather than the plural ht'w 'lhym, consistent with the creation account of the Book of Abraham (Abraham 4:1ff) and LDS theology, though it blows strict forms of monotheism (whether Unitarian or creedal Trinitarian) out of the water. If one want to see the exegetical gymnastics Trinitarians have to engage in to play-down the theological importance of this verse, see this post discussing the NET’s comment on Gen 20:13.

There are many other false assumptions in the opening few minutes alone of this video, but the final one I wish to discuss is Bartosiewicz's assumption of biblical inerrancy (he does not spell out his understanding of this, but I will assume he holds to the Chicago Statement's understanding thereof). However, biblical inerrancy is nothing but a shell-game.

Latter-day Saints have a rather high view of the Bible (in spite of the objections of some detractors). However, LDS do not hold to the concept of inerrancy (not just the Bible, but all canonical works). Even the Book of Mormon states it could contain the mistakes of men; in the title page, we read:

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

There are many proof-texts used to support the concept of biblical inerrancy, but they are based on eisegesis (e.g., John 10:35).

One of the best well-known claims of a contradiction in the Bible can be found in the conflicting descriptions of Judas’ death in the Gospel of Matthew and the Acts of the Apostles:

And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. (Matt 27:5)

Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. (Acts 1:18)

According to Matthew, Judas died by hanging himself; in Acts, Judas fell and his entails gushed out.

Apologists for inerrancy have tried (rather desperately) to support the inerrancy of the Bible (at least the autographia [originals]). For instance, Ron Rhodes in his The 10 Most Important Things you Can Say to a Mormon (Harvest House, 2001) argued that Judas hanged himself and, after he died, the rope snapped and Judas fell onto rocks, resulting in his entrails gushing out, with Matthew giving just part of the entire story as does Acts, and only by combining both together can one get the full picture.

Firstly, it should be noted that Rhodes and other apologists for inerrancy are using a standard for the Bible that they would never apply to the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price as well as other texts that purport to be inspired Scripture. Of course, most LDS apologists already know our critics apply a double-standard, so this is nothing new.

Secondly, to call the response of Rhodes (and others) “stupid” is to put things rather nicely. Consider the following problems with this pathetic attempt at harmonisation:

·       Judas committed suicide by hanging; therefore, his head and upper torso would have been closest to the tree limb that he was hanging from and his feet nearest to the ground. Consequently, from a hanging position, Judas would be falling feet first. Yet Acts reports that Judas fell head first without any mention of a hanging. It would seem that Judas would need to be hanging from a substantial height from his body to have adequate time to rotate or tumble into a head first position. The physics of such a scenario is open to speculation.

·       Even if Judas were assumed to be falling head first, he would have presumably split open his head, not his guts.

·       Exegesis is not the driving force behind the “response” by Rhodes et al.; instead, it is a defence of a dogma resulting in clear eisegesis.

As I wrote previously on the topic of inerrancy apologists:

It is abundantly clear by reading the Evangelical Protestant apologists that they will not accept any evidence that overturns biblical inerrancy No matter how badly a text has erred - historically, chronological or otherwise - no charge against biblical inerrancy will ever stick. It would save us a lot of time if Evangelical apologists will simply admit this. In reality, this is nothing short of historical gymnastics and wishful reconstructions at best - and blatant dishonesty at worst.

Another potent example would be the case of the use of Amos 9:11 (LXX) in Acts 15 by James. The text is used as Old Testament support for the belief that Gentiles do not have to be circumcised before entering the New Covenant. However, when one reads this text in its context, nothing is said about the cessation of the requirement of circumcision; furthermore, James is reliant upon the LXX notwithstanding its obvious translation mistakes. In Acts 15:13–17, James appeals to Amos 9:11–12 in an effort to support through scripture the taking of the gospel directly to the Gentiles and the cessation of circumcision. It even seems James’ quotation helps settle the debate. The critical portion of Amos 9 reads

In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old: That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this. (Amos 9:11)

This reading comes from LXX Amos, although there is a bit of movement. For instance, “the Lord” is an addition. The LXX actually omits the object, reading, “so that the remnant of the people might seek, and all the nations . . .” There is also a clause missing from Acts’ quotation (“and set it up as the days of old”). The important observation, however, is the Greek translation’s relationship to the Hebrew. The crucial section reads in the Greek, “so that the remnant of the people might seek,” but in the Hebrew, “that they may possess the remnant of Edom.” The confusion with Edom arises likely because of the lack of the mater lectionis which we find in MT in the word אדום. Without it, the word looks an awful lot like אדם , “man,” or “humanity.” The verb “to possess” (יירשׁו), was also misunderstood as “to seek” (ידרשׁו). It is unlikely that MT is secondary. First, there’s no object for the transitive verb εκζητησωσιν, “that they might seek.” Second, the reading in MT makes more sense within the context. David’s fallen house would be restored so that it might reassert its authority, specifically in overtaking the remnant of Edom (see Amos 1:11–12) and “all the nations,” for which Edom functions as a synecdoche (Edom commonly acts as a symbol for all of Israel’s enemies [Ps 137:7; Isa 34:5–15; 63:1–6; Lam 4:21]). The notion that the restoration of the Davidic kingdom would cause the remnant of the people and all the nations to seek the Lord is also a bit of a disconnection within Amos. This quotation shows not only that the early church relied on the Septuagint, but that it rested significant doctrinal decisions on the Greek translation, even when it represented a misreading of the underlying Hebrew. Christians today reject the inspiration of the LXX, but the New Testament firmly accepted it, and if the New Testament is inspired in its reading of LXX Amos 9:11-12, which is itself a misreading of the original reading, then the current Hebrew Old Testament is in error. (See Gary D. Martin, Multiple Originals: New Approaches to Hebrew Bible Textual Criticism [Atlanta, Ga.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010], pp. 255-61 for more information on this issue).

Now, let us delve into the theme of the video, purported contradictions between the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants.

Defining the Principle of Contradiction

Bartosiewicz never provides a definition of a contradiction. Due to this, here is how a manual on logic defines "the principle of contradiction":

The principle could be regarded as a fuller expression of the principle of identity, for if X is X (principle of identity), it cannot at one and the same time be non-X (principle of contradiction). There would be no contradiction if something both was and was not at the same time but in difference respects. For example, you can be physically in New York right now and mentally three thousand miles away in San Francisco. But you cannot right now be physically (i.e., in the same respect) both in New York and San Francisco. Two statements are in contradiction if what one says completely negates what the other says. For example:

a)    Alexander Hamilton was a member of George Washington’s cabinet.

b)    Alexander Hamilton was not a member of George Washington’s cabinet.

Both of these statements cannot be true. If one is true, the other must be false, and vice versa. (D.Q. McInerny, Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking [New York: Random House Trade, 2004], 28)

Related to this would be the identity of indiscernibles (click here for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's definition thereof)

The "Number of God"

Bartosiewicz alleges that Alma 11:27-39 and similar texts contradict D&C 121:32 and 132:20 on the "number" of God. However,  this is eisegesis. We have shown from the above that the Bible affirms the ontological existence of beings called "gods," something consistent with the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith elsewhere (e.g., Sermon in the Grove). What about the Book of Mormon?

Before we provide exegesis of the pertinent texts,  we should note what Latter-day Saint theology actually is; in spite of anti-LDS claims that "Mormonism" is "polytheistic," such is far from the truth. Blake Ostler summed up succinctly the LDS position (“Kingship Monotheism”) rather cogently:

There are many gods, but all of the gods are subordinate to a Most High God to whom the gods give ultimate honour and glory and without whose authority and approval they do not act in relation to the world. (Blake Ostler, Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008], p. 43).

Furthermore, we have to present what Latter-day Saint theology teaches, something Bartosiewicz cannot do without showing his utter lack of intellectual integrity. In Latter-day Saint theology, “God” is a multivalent term—in our theology, by definition, God is the one supreme, absolute being, the ultimate source of the entire universe, the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good creator, ruler, and preserver of all things (cf. Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine [2d ed.: Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1979], p. 317). In LDS theology, this refers to--

(1) God the Father, the ultimate power and authority of the whole universe (e.g., D&C 121:32)

(2) The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the three members of the Godhead, who are perfectly united as One God in that they share the same will, love, and covenant with one another (cf. Alma 11:44; Mormon 7:7)

Also, the term “God,” as well as divine titles are used of the person of Jesus Christ in LDS theology; as one example, D&C 19:1, 16-18:

I am Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord, yea, eve I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the World . . . For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all that they might not suffer if they would repent. . .

The “oneness” of the persons of the Godhead is not a metaphysical oneness, a much later development in Christian theology, later ratified during the Trinitarian controversies of the fourth centuries onwards, but the same oneness Christ expects us to have with Him:

That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may also be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou havest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one. (John 17:21-22)

That such is the case can be seen in 3 Nephi 19:29, which should serve as a "controlling verse" for Book of Mormon theology:

Father, I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me out of the world, because of their faith, that they may be purified in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one, that I may be glorified in thee.

The Greek fathers of the Christian church had a term “perichoresis,” basically meaning, “Dancing in unison,” to describe the inter- and intra-personal relationship between the members of the Godhead; such is similar to an informed LDS Christology. Furthermore, this matches the 1916 First Presidency statement on the relationship between the Father and the Son (entitled, “The Father and the Son”), one of divine agency (investiture); the following comes from section 4 of the statement:

4. Jesus Christ the "Father" By Divine Investiture of Authority

A fourth reason for applying the title "Father" to Jesus Christ is found in the fact that in all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority. This is true of Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in the which He was known as Jehovah; also during His embodiment in the flesh; and during His labors as a disembodied spirit in the realm of the dead; and since that period in His resurrected state. To the Jews He said: "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30; see also 17:11, 22); yet He declared "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28); and further, "I am come in my Father's name" (John 5:43; see also 10:25). The same truth was declared by Christ Himself to the Nephites (see 3 Nephi 20:35 and 28:10), and has been reaffirmed by revelation in the present dispensation (Doc. & Gov. 50:43). Thus the Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father's name; and so far as power, authority and Godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father.

We read, by way of analogy, that God placed His name upon or in the Angel who was assigned to special ministry unto the people of Israel during the exodus. Of that Angel the Lord said: "Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him" (Exodus 23:21).

The ancient apostle, John, was visited by an angel who ministered and spoke in the name of Jesus Christ. As we read: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John" (Revelation 1:1). John was about to worship the angelic being who spoke in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, but was forbidden: "And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which showed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God" (Rev. 22:8, 9). And then the angel continued to speak as though he were the Lord Himself: "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (verses 12, 13). The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ, who had been exalted to the right hand of God His Father, had placed His name upon the angel sent to John, and the angel spoke in the first person, saying "I come quickly," "I am Alpha and Omega," though he meant that Jesus Christ would come, and that Jesus Christ was Alpha and Omega.

 Let us provide the text that critics often cite, including Bartosiewicz:

And Zeezrom said unto him, Thou sayest there is a true and living God? And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he [Amulek] answered No. (Alma 11:26-29)

One should note from the get-go that the person of the Father is in view here. Later, there is a differentiation between “the one true God” and the Son of God, Jesus Christ:

And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God? And he [Amulek] said unto him, yea. And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word. Now Zeezrom said unto the people: See that ye remember these things; for he said there is but one God; yet he saith that the Son of God shall come, but he shall not save his people—as though he had authority to command God. (Alma 11:32-35)

The idea that the Father is the “one true God” is not inconsistent with either Latter-day Saint theology on the plurality of gods and/or any high Christology. Indeed, such comments are part-and-parcel of the New Testament itself, where the Father is said to be the only true God, and the Son is distinguished, not just from the person of the Father, but God (Greek: θεος). If Bartosiewicz were consistent , they would either drop this argument or at least modify such. Then again, their target audience is not informed members of the Church but Evangelicals who, like them, know next to nothing about “Mormonism.” Note the following example (many more could be offered)--

In John 17:3, we read:

αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.

"Now this is life of the age to come that they may know you the only one who is the true God and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ" (my translation).

The title, τον μονον αληθινον θεον (“the only one who is the true God”) is predicated upon a single person, not a “being” composed of three “persons” (however one wishes to define “person”), and such is predicated upon the singular person of the Father, with Jesus himself distinguishes himself in John 17:3 from “the only true God.” Absolutising this verse, this is a strictly Unitarian verse as only a singular person is within the category of being the “only true God” (interestingly enough, Isa 44:6, the other text cited by Donal Walsh, uses singular personal pronouns, indicating a singular divine person). However, in Latter-day Saint theology, “God” is a multivalent term, something Trinitarianism cannot allow when speaking of (true) divinities. That this is the Christological model of “Biblical Christianity” can be seen in many places, such as Heb 1:8-9:

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast love righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore, God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness, above thy fellows.

This is an important pericope for many reasons—this is one of only a few places in the New Testament where Jesus has the term "God" (Greek: θεος) predicated upon him (others would include John 20:28 and probably, based on grammar, Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1], and yet, post-ascension, Jesus is differentiated, not simply from the person of the Father (ambiguously tolerated in Trinitarianism), but a differentiation from God (literally, the God [ο θεος]), something not tolerated in Trinitarianism. This can be further seen in the fact that this is a "midrash" of Psa 45:6-7, a royal coronation text for the Davidic King, of whom Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment (cf. 2 Sam 7). Both the Hebrew and the Greek LXX predicates "God" upon the king, and yet, there is a God (in the case of Jesus, God the Father) above him. The LXX reads the same as Hebrews; the Hebrew literally reads "elohim, your elohim" (alt. "God, your God" [ אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֱ֭לֹהֶיךָ (elohim ­­eloheyka)].

Logically, one has to conclude a plurality of Gods, unless one wishes to explicitly reject at least one of premises a-c from the following:

A. There are at least three divine persons.

B. Every divine person is God

C. If every “a” is a “b,” there cannot be fewer B's than A's

D. Conclusion: There are at least three Gods.

I am aware of the "three persons/one being" or "three 'whos' in the one 'what" idea--however, Trinitarianism also states:

Jesus = God

Father = God

Spirit = God

Jesus is not the person of the Father; the Father is not the person of the Spirit; the Spirit is not the person of the Son

Numerically, there is only one God

God = Father, Son, and Spirit

To put it into logical language:

Jesus = x

Father = x

Spirit = x

Numerically, there is only one x

Only by using one definition of "God" when speaking of the triune "being" of God and another definition of "God" when predicated upon the persons of the Trinity can one get away from a logical/mathematical impossibility (3 "x"'s equalling 1 "x") or a form of modalism, where the Father, Son, and Spirit are the same person. The latter is condemned (rightfully) as heresy and antithetical to the biblical texts by Trinitarianism; the former, however, is not allowed, as the various person are said to be numerically identical to the "One God." This is not a "mystery" (something that cannot be understood perfectly, like the atonement of Jesus Christ), but a logical, mathematical, and I argue, a biblical-exegetical impossibility.

As we have seen, Bartosiewicz is using “arguments” that would refute their own theology. So much for consistency and fairness, let alone intellectual integrity

Further, Alma 11 is consistent with LDS belief that there is only One God (the Father). However, it only shows theological and biblical illiteracy to claim that this refutes multiple gods being in the midst of the true God (cf. Deut 32:7-9 from Qumran [discussed above]). In the Hebrew Bible, "gods" are found in reference to heavenly beings that are not supreme, but have true/ontological existence. For example, there are divinities that are inferior or subordinate to, or are divinities only by permission of the head God. Such divinities were felt to have religious power and authority, but only by participation/permission from the higher God. In the Old Testament, such would include member of the court of El alongside angels and possibly gods of foreign nations. The various mediating principles and half-personified divine attributes found in the Hebrew writings such as the דבר  or the divine word of Wisdom would belong to this class. In the New Testament, "the Word" and "the Mediator" are also used in this sense in the Pauline Epistles and the Gospel of John. In such passages, Christ is viewed as a subordinate being even though he is considered a divine and meriting some form of worship which, ultimately, goes back to the Father (cf. Phil 2:5-11).

One possible criticism is that modalism is in view in Alma 11, as Jesus is called “the very Eternal Father” in v.39. However, as we have seen previously, there is a clear distinction between the persons of the Father and the Son in this chapter. Furthermore, “[eternal/everlasting] Father” is a title of Christ in the Book of Mormon, denoting his role as the creator. Note, for instance, the words of King Benjamin in Mosiah 3:8:

And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

Only by confusing the title of “Father” with the person of God the Father can one claim such, but such would reflect pretty poor exegesis skills (cf. Isa 9:6 where the title אביעד ["Eternal Father"] is used of a Messianic figure).

The above should be compared with other passages in the Book of Mormon that distinguish "God" from "Jesus," including:

And the people went forth and witnessed against them-- testifying that they had reviled against the law, and their lawyers and judges of the land, and also of all the people that were in the land; and also testified that there was but one God, and that he should send his Son among the people, but he should not save them; and many such things did the people testify against Alma and Amulek. Now this was done before the chief judge of the land. (Alma 14:5)

In the above passage, the category of the “One God” is exhausted by the Father of Jesus, not the “Trinity,” something consistent with New Testament texts such as John 17:3; 1 Cor 8:4-6, Eph 4:5-7; and 1 Tim 2:5.

A related question would be “if the Father is "the only true God" does that mean Jesus is an idol?” This question, however, ignores the biblical witness that there are (true) beings who are called “gods” (e.g., Deut 32:7-9, 43; Psa 29:1; 82:6, etc), not “false gods” or “idols.” Instead, the term “true” (Greek: ἀληθινός) in John 17:3 refers to God the Father being intrinsically God; as we know from texts such as Heb 1:3 and the unanimous consent of the Patristics, only the person of the Father is God in an underived sense (autotheos); the Son is divine based on His participation with the Father.

The “either Jesus is true God in the same sense of the Father, or he is an idol”-approach is nothing short of an either-or fallacy. For instance, in John 6:32, we read:

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you note that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven (τὸν ἄρτον ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὸν ἀληθινόν).

Jesus is referred to being “true” bread, using the same adjective in John 17:3 (ἀληθινός). However, the bread (manna) the Israelites received in Exo 16 was not “false” or “non-existent” bread; however, it was not the archetypal bread that Jesus truly is, as only the latter can give eternal life to those who consume; the former could only satiate physical hunger and could not provide salvation.

John 17:3 is clearly a non-Trinitarian verse as is Alma 11:44 and related texts in the Bible and the Book of Mormon. The LDS view, that allows for a polysemic meaning to the term (true) G/gods is consistent with the entirety of the biblical witness, something that Trinitarian and Socinian theologies do not allow for. This “either-or” approach is based on eisegesis, as it is based on a common logical fallacy.

There is no real contradiction between the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants.

Matthew 28:19 and the Trinity

Bartosiewicz, while discussing the "number of God" issue in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, references Matt 28:19 and, based on the use of the singular "name," argues that such supports the Trinity. However, he is guilty of eisegesis on this point, too.

Firstly, there is no mention or hint of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost , as a whole and/or individually, being numerically identical to the “one God.” That is something that must be read into this verse (eisegesis). Verse 18 should be the verse that controls the exegetical possibilities one can derive from this baptismal formula, as Jesus, even after the ascension and his exaltation by the Father (cf. Phil 2:5-11), states that "All power is given unto me in heaven and earth," showing it was not intrinsically His prior to such (clearly supporting a form of subordinationist Christology). One should also see John 20:17 and the Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews, including Heb 1:8-9, where there is a God above Jesus, notwithstanding his exalted state.

Secondly, notwithstanding the apologists’ use of “name” (ονομα) being singular, this poses no problem for Latter-day Saint theology. “Name” in the Old and New Testaments often meant one’s “title” (as in Isa 9:6) and/or the power and authority one possessed./acted under. Consider, just as one of many examples, John 5:43, a saying of Jesus Himself:

I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

Just as Christ in this verse comes in his Father's "name" (i.e., authority), so also his followers baptise by the authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is a single authority and power.

A related passage would be John 17:26:

And I have declared unto them thy name, and I will declare it; that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them (cf. 2 Sam 8:13; Isa 55:13; Jer 13:11 Ezek 22:5; Rev 3:2).

Richard Hopkins, in his book, Biblical Mormonism (Horizon, 1994), offered an alternative approach to this verse, viz. that the singular form of the word "name" is correctly used to shorten the passage from "in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son, and in the name of the Holy Ghost." Hopkins further argued that, if the plural form were used, it would signify that the passage had been shorted from "in the names of the Father, and in the names of the Son, and in the names of the Holy Ghost." Therefore, the use of the singular is proper where each person is designated in the phrase has His own name (Hopkins, p. 79). While I don't accept this interpretation, it is not an impossible reading of the evidence.

Taking a prima facie and even secunda facie reading of this verse, it clearly presents the Father, Son, and Spirit as three separate persons in the normative understanding of that term, not the later post-biblical theories about the distinction between the persons of the Tri-une God. If anything, this would support, not creedal Trinitarianism, but Social Trinitarianism, which allows for the Father, Son, and Spirit to be three separate persons in the proper meaning of the term, with their own centre of consciousness, as advanced by the likes of Richard Swinburne. For a book-length treatment on the issue of “person” in Trinitarian circles, see Persons: Human and Divine (Oxford University Press, 2007), eds. Peter Van Inwagen and Dean Zimmerman.

It should also be noted that, since the beginning of the Church, Latter-day Saint baptism is performed using the same formula; note D&C 20:73:

The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptise, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

This is the same formula I was baptised under. Furthermore, such a phrase appears in the current (1985) LDS hymnal, such as “Arise, O God, and Shine,” with the final stanza reading (emphasis added):

To God, the only wise. The one immortal King, let hallelujahs rise from ev'ry living thing: let all that breathe, on ev'ry coast, praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Many Trinitarian apologists are much more cautious about using the baptismal formula as positive evidence for the Trinity, in contrast to Shamoun, Gill, Robert Bowman, Ron Rhodes, and others. JP Holding, a critic of the LDS faith, writes:

I would begin by noting that our own study of the Trinity makes absolutely no use of Matthew 28:19. This verse is not particularly useful for Trinitarian defense as it theoretically could support any view -- modalism, even tritheism, could be permitted from this verse, for it only lists the members of the Triune Godhead with absolutely no explanation as to their exact relationship.

Verse 18 would indicate that the Father is in a functionally superior relationship to the Son, but that says nothing about an ontological relationship; though one may justly argue that it is very unlikely (but not impossible) that all three would be named together if there were not an ontological equality, lest God's glory somehow be compromised.

None of the earliest commentators on this verse (e.g., Tertullian; Ignatius of Antioch; Origen) ever used the verse to support the concept of metaphysical “oneness” of the Father, Son, and Spirit; such is a later development in the Christian interpretative tradition.

While other important points could be raised, I will discuss just one more--in reality, the Trinitarian apologists who appeal to Matt 28:19 are guilty of question begging. Simply because a verse or pericope has the three persons of the Godhead together, that is definitive “proof” of their co-equality, co-eternality, and all other elements required for creedal Trinitarianism. However, triads appear all throughout the New Testament, and yet, there is often an explication of one of the members being superior to the other two, showing that a triad, in and of itself, is insufficient to cite for evidence of co-equality.

For instance, in 1 Cor 13:13, we read:

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

Just because faith, hope, and love (KJV: charity) are in a triadic proximity to one another, similar to the Father, Son, and Spirit in Matt 28:19, such does not prove ontological equality since one of these is said to be the greatest; this should, at the very least, force one to be very cautious to present this verse as positive evidence of Trinitarian theology.

If one wishes to absolutise Matt 28:19, within a Trinitarian hermeneutic, such would cause all sorts of problems with one's exegesis and theology. Note 1 John 5:8:

There are three that testify: the Spirit and the Water and the blood, and these three agree (NRSV).

One would have to conclude, based on the interpretive framework many Trinitarian apologists employ, that this shows that the Trinity is composed of Spirit, water, and blood. In reality, in this verse, and in Matt 28:19, there is no triune being/entity in view here.

Indeed, the early Christians, such as Tertullian, used triadic language, but when one examines the totality of their writings, they did not hold to modern Trinitarian theology and thought. In the case of Tertullian, we find that he did not believe Jesus eternally pre-existed and that "spirit" was material, a rejection of "divine simplicity," a necessary element in later Trinitarian theologies.

Recently, one Evangelical apologist for the Trinity, in an interview on Dale Tuggy's "Trinities podcast" (see here) has argued that being baptised into the name of “x” presupposes the “divinity” (understood within the Trinitarian understanding of such a concept) of “x.” However, this is greatly flawed. For instance, in 1 Cor 10:2, the Israelites were baptised into Moses:

And were all baptised unto Moses (εις τον Μωυσην) in the cloud and in the sea.

  

Another problem with the argument of Bowman and other Trinitarians who claim that the triadic expression in Matt 28:19 is proof (whether implicit or explicit) of creedal/Latin Trinitarianism is that it makes nonsense of other triadic verses. Notice the following locution that is common in the Bible, “God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob.” Does that mean that mean that the “God” of Abraham is a different divine person from the God of Isaac, who is a different person from the God of Jacob? Or that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are three persons who share the same “divine being”? Such leads to all types of interpretive and theological nonsense!

Lest a Trinitarian read the phrase, “God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob” as somehow evidence of the Trinity (three divine persons in the one God), Jesus is distinguished from this triadic phrase, not included in it (or “the divine identity” to use Richard Bauckham’s term); notice the following verse:

The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. (Acts 3:13)

In this verse, Jesus is distinguished, not just from the person of the Father (tolerated, albeit ambiguously, by Trinitarians), but God, which is unacceptable in Trinitarian theology.

While much more could be said, Matt 28:19 is clearly not evidence of Trinitarianism. 

"Eternality" and "Progression" of God 

While discussing D&C 132:20, Bartosiewicz implicitly alleges a contradiction between the biblical view of God being eternal (often Psa 90:2 will be quoted) and the Latter-day Saint view.  Later in the video, there is a segment dedicated to this particular "contradiction" when he quotes the following Book of Mormon text:

For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity. (Moroni 8:18)

Many Evangelical critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its theology point to this verse, as well other similar verses in the Book of Mormon and other unique Latter-day Saint Scriptures (e.g., Mormon 7:22; Moroni 10:28; D&C 20:28) that Latter-day Saint scripture refutes the belief that the Father experienced mortality, as did the Son, as Joseph Smith taught in the King Follett Discourse, as well as the doctrine of eternal progression. How can Latter-day Saints harmonise their theology with such texts? Note a number of things that show Evangelicals are guilty of superficial reading of these texts:

1. The attributes of deity have always existed, having no beginning and will have no end, regardless of who holds or shares these attributes.
2. The ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins did not understand such terms in the same way as we do today. Our ideas on the meaning of "eternal" and its cognate terms are wholly modern ideas which were not believed as they are before the fourth century; indeed, the term we often translate as eternity (Hebrew: עוֹלָם Greek: αιων/αιωνιος) and related terms, alongside having a qualitative meaning, meant an undetermined and unspecified period of time to the ancients. They were forced to use such words in repetitive phrases to come near the concept, but even then the meaning still had inherent time constraints. If we understand such phrases in the Book of Mormon as ancients understood them, the conflict vanishes. Our concepts of eternity and time are wholly modern concepts which ancient Semites and others did not hold to; they are later, post-biblical constructions. [1]
3. The Book of Mormon (and biblical) authors cannot be speaking of metaphysical natures not being changed; if such were the case, this would contradict the claim that Jesus Christ emptied himself to become a man like us (cf. Heb 2:16-18 and Phil 2:5-11 where Jesus experiences a kenosis), notwithstanding Heb 13:8 stating that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
4. In Latter-day Saint theology, intelligences, and all the attributes inherent within intelligence (e.g., personality) have existed throughout all eternity (e.g., D&C 93:29); God the Father has existed in like-manner, according to the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith[2]
5. Note the language of D&C 132:20: “Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting . . .”

As for Psa 90:2, the Hebrew reads:

בטרם הרים ילדו ותחולל ארץ ותבל ומעולם עד עולם אתה אל

The 1985 JPS Tanakh renders the verse thusly:

Before the mountains came into being, before You brought forth the earth and the world, from eternity to eternity You are God.

The Hebrew phrase אתה אל (“you are” and “[a] god”) appears elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible:

And she called the name of the Lord that spake unto her, Thou God [NRSV: You are El [god] Roi] seesth me . . .(Gen 16:13)

Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour. (Isa 45:15)

And he prayed unto the Lord, and said, I pray thee, O Lord, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshiah: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil. (Jonah 4:2)

The literal meaning of the Hebrew is "you are a god." Latter-day Saints can reconcile this biblical passage with our theology of God the Father having experiencing a mortality of his own under the premise that, once he was perfected/exalted (similar to how Jesus was--Phil 2:5-11; Luke 13:32; Heb 1:4; 5:9, etc) to being "[a] God," he remained "[a] God" "from everlasting to everlasting" (cf. D&C 132:20, quoted above and the discussion regarding the ancient understanding of "eternity").

Notes for the Above

[1] For a thorough study of the meaning of the αιων/αιωνιος and their ancient meanings, see Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan, Terms for Eternity: Aionios and Aidios in Classical and Christian Texts (Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press, 2007). For the difference between Semitic and post-biblical Greek concepts of "time" and "eternity," see Thorleif Bornan, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek (New York: Norton, 1970).

[2] As representative examples, taken from The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Centre, 1980), ed. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook; spelling errors in original text retained: "God was a self exhisting  being, man exhists upon the same principle. God made a tabernacle & put a spirit in it and it became a Human soul, man exhisted in spirit & mind coequal with God himself . . . Intelligence is Eternal & it is self exhisting" (p. 346); "Intelligence exists upon a selfexistent principle" (p. 360); "I believe that God is eternal. That He had no beginning, and can have no end. Eternity means that which is without beginning or end. I believe that the soul is eternal; and had no beginning; it can have no end” (p. 33)

The Council of Gods

Although mocked by Bartosiewicz, biblical scholarship supports this concept. Note the following which is representative of current scholarship (which Bartosiewicz seems ignorant of):

Terminology also shows that gods can organize into groups. They may form a QHL ‘gathering’ (Ps 89:6) or עדה ‘assembly’ (82:1). They may constitute a סוד ‘council’ (e.g., Jer 23:18), or they may muster into a צבא ‘army’ (e.g., Is 24:21). Gods can form a variety of collectives.

All of their designations, though, are referentially compatible. ON the one hand, like the grammatical structure of אלם and בני אלים , gods are plural. They have internal composition, and they may even number in the thousands (Dan 7:10; see also Ps 68:18). Further, if these gods follow the pattern of those in Gen 3:22, they are also a countable plurality an undifferentiated or homogenous group and, altogether, comprise a mass ‘totality’ (e.g., Zec 14:5; Ps 148:2). The many gods can coalesce into unions, assemblies, companies, congregations, or squadrons.

Biblical writers ascribe many attributes to nonforeign gods. Of paramount, and predictable, importance is their divine and God-like nature (e.g., Ps 96:4). They are at least as old as creation (Job 38:4-7), and they are presumed to live forever (Ps 92:6). Divinity renders them immortal. Moreover, they are holy (e.g., 89:6, 8), sovereign (e.g., 136:3), and masculine (see, esp., 1 Kgs 22:21a = 2 Chr 18:20a).

Israel’s gods have other God-like qualities, too. For example, they are awesome (Jdg 13:6), 'good' (1 Sam 29:9), and wise (e.g., Job 15:8). They are especially "considered to be paragons of knowledge and discernment," as the wise woman of Tekoa well knows.

Your servant thought, "Please, the word of my lord the king will act as comfort. For כמלאך האלהים like an angel of God, so is my lord the king--understanding good and evil . . . My lord is as wise as the wisdom of מלאך האלהים an angel of God--knowing everything on earth." (2 Sam 14:17a-ba.20b)

David's wisdom and knowledge are shared only with the gods (see Gen 3:22). (W. Randall Garr, In His Own Image and Likeness: Humanity, Divinity, and Monotheism [Culture & History of the Ancient Near East; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2003], 66-68)

God as “Spirit”

Bartosiewicz displays again his lack of exegetical abilities when he claims (1) John 4:24 teaches that God is a Spirit and (2) Alma 18 in the Book of Mormon teaches this, (3) contradicting the Doctrine and Covenants on this point. Let us examine the texts carefully in light of exegesis, and not quote mining as Bartosiewicz does:

John 4:24:

 "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24 [NRSV])

John 4:24 is one of the most common proof-texts used against the Latter-day Saint belief that God the Father is embodied. However, from the get-go, one must note the irony that most critics who raise this verse are Trinitarians. Why? In this verse, there is a differentiation, not just between the persons of Jesus and the Father, but between Jesus and God (θεος)! Notwithstanding, there are some elements on this verse that are often overlooked by critics.

Firstly, the Greek of this verse is:

πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, καὶ τοὺς προσκυνοῦντας αὐτὸν ἐν πνεύματι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ δεῖ προσκυνεῖν

The phrase, often translated, “God is spirit” is in bold. In Greek grammar, this is a qualitative predicate nominative, which deals with, not composition, but one's qualities. Furthermore, from the context, this refers to man’s worship of God, not the composition of deity. Jesus is addressing a Samaritan, whose theology privileged Mount Gezirim, while the Jews privileged Jerusalem, one of the many disputes between them. Jesus, instead, echoing the universalism of the New Covenant, states that proper worship of God will not be localised in one place. In other words, this verse does not address God's physiological nature--only the means by which men communicate with God. Such must be done spiritually (i.e., spirit to spirit), and must develop a spiritual nature.

Furthermore, taking the absolutist view of this verse to its "logical" conclusion, one would have to state that it is a requirement that men are to shed their physical bodies in order to worship God--if God is only spirit and this passage requires men to worship God "in spirit," then men must worship God only in spirit. Thus, to cite John 4:24 against the teachings of Mormon theology is to claim that men cannot worship God as mortal beings, which is ludicrous. It would also akin to absolutising 1 or 15:45, and stating that Christ currently exists in an unembodied spirit, notwithstanding Christ's corporeal ascension (Acts 1:11) and His being depicted as embodied in post-ascension visions of Jesus (e.g., Acts 7:55-56).

A related criticism that has been raised by some opponents (e.g., Craig Blomberg in How Wide the Divide?) is that if God were to possess a physical body, this would make divine omnipresence impossible as God would be rendered "limited" or "finite" by that body. Therefore, God, in LDS theology, could not be omnipresent, something required by this verse. However, Latter-day Saints affirm only that the Father has a body, not that his body has him. The Father is corporeal and infinitely more, and if a spirit can be omnipresent without being physically present, then so can a God who possess a body and a spirit.

Indeed, the Bible affirms that, though the Father has a body (e.g., Heb 1:3), His glory, influence, and power fills the universe (Jer 23:34). He is continually aware of everything in the universe and can communicate with, and travel to, any spot instantaneously (Psa 139:7-12).

Furthermore, a question that is begged is that “spirit” is immaterial. However, many early Christians believed that “spirit” was material (e.g., Origen, On First Principles, Preface 9 and Tertullian, Against Praxaes, 7), something consistent with LDS theology (D&C 131:7).

Another related verse that is often raised by critics is that of Luke 24:39. However, as with John 4:24, this is another example of eisegesis. What Evangelical critics fail to note is that the converse of the statement is not true. A living physical body most definitely does have a spirit. In fact, it is physically dead without one (James 2:26). A spirit alone does not have a physical body. But if God has a physical body, he also has a spirit. Therefore, even though God is corporeal, it is appropriate to say that God "is spirit" (as in John 4:24), for spirit is the central part of His nature as a corporeal being.

Moreover, it would not be appropriate to say that God is only a spirit based on this verse--here, Christ clearly has a spirit and a physical body. His spirit had just been recombined with His perfected and glorified physical body in the resurrection, a point He took great pains to demonstrate (Luke 24:41-43). He was not, however, "a spirit" in the sense of being only a spirit.

In unique LDS Scripture, we find something similar to John 4:24 echoed in D&C 93:33-35:

For man is spirit, The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy. And when separated man cannot receive a fullness of joy. The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.

In this pericope, man is said to be “spirit,” though such does not preclude embodiment. 

Biblical scholars would also disagree with the common eisegesis of John 4:24. New Testament scholar, C.H. Dodd wrote:

It should be observed that to translate 'God is a spirit' is the most gross perversion of the meaning. 'A spirit' implies one of the class of πνευματα, and as we have seen, there is no trace in the Fourth Gospel of the vulgar conception of a multitude of πνευματα. (C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: 1958], 225 n. 1)

On the absurdities of understanding John 4:24 as teaching the ontological nature of God, Origen wrote:

Many writers have made various affirmations about God and His ουσια. Some have said that He is of a corporeal nature, fine and aether-like; some that he is of incorporeal nature; others that He is beyond ουσια in dignity and power. It is therefore worth our while to see whether we have in the Scriptures starting-points (αφορμας) for making any statement about the ουσια of God. Here [1 John i.2] it is said that πνευμα is, as it were, His ουσια. For he said, πνευμα ο θεος. In the Law He is said to be fire, for it is written, ο θεος ημων πυρ καταναλισκον (Deut. iv.24, Heb. xii. 29), and in John to be light, for he says, ο θεος πως εστι, και σκοτια εω αυτω ουκ εστιν ουδεμια (1 John i.5). if we are to take these statements at their face value, without concerning ourselves with anything beyond the verbal expression, it is time for us to say that God is σωμα; but what absurdities would follow if we said so, few realise. (Origen, Commentary on John xiii.21-23, as cited by Dodd, ibid., 225-26).

This is mirrored by the comments of Raymond Brown in his magisterial 2-volume commentary on John's Gospel:

[This verse is] not an essential definition of God, but a description of God's dealing with men; it means that God is Spirit toward men because He gives the Spirit (xiv 16) which begets them anew. There are two other such descriptions in the Johannine writings: "God is light" (1 John i 5), and "God is love" ( 1 John iv 8 ). These too refer to the God who acts; God gives the world His Son, the light of the world (iii 19, viii 12, ix 5) as a sign of His love (iii 16). (The Gospel According to John (i-xii), vol. 29 of the Anchor Bible [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966], 167.)

Alan Kerr offered the following comments on John 4:24:

6.6.4 God Is SpiritCommentators generally agree that this statement is not a philosphical proposition but a message about God in his relation to people. Two similar sentences about God in 1 John bear a similar sense: God is light (1:5) and God is love (4:8). It is also generally agreed that ‘Spirit’ here captures the Old Testament nuances of רוח as the life-giving creative power of God. The decisive issue for John is summed up in the stated purpose of the Gospel: ‘These things are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you might have life through his name’ (20:31). The goal is life (ζωή), and it is God the Spirit who gives life (6:63). This life is traced back to being born of the πνεῦμα, the life-Giver (3:5). In some way this life is bound up with knowing—knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent (17:3)—that is, knowing the truth.Given this statement—πνεῦμα ὁ θεός—we must interpret ἐν πνεύματι in the light of it. It cannot refer to any spirit, but only to the Spirit that is God. While the primary emphasis of ἐν πνεύματι is on the life-giving and creative power of the worship, there is also a secondary significance intimated by 3:8 where πνεῦμα is the unconfined, uncontrolled and uncomprehended wind/Spirit that blows where it wills. The presence of God who is πνεῦμα is not to be confined to Jerusalem or Gerizim. The true worshipper should therefore not be confined by spatial limitations.
On the other hand, for John the Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus. This emerges most clearly in the pronouncement about the Johannine Paraclete, who extends and communicates the presence of Jesus while Jesus is away. So in Jn 14:18 Jesus can say, ‘I am coming to you,’ and refer directly to the Spirit Paraclete in the previous verses (14:16, 17). C.F.D. Moule succinctly comments on how Christology dominated pneumatology in early pneumatic experience, a comment that aptly sums up the entwinment of the Spirit and Jesus in John: ‘The Spirit is Christified; Christ is Spiritualized.’ So given Johannine pneumatology it would be in order to say that worshipping ‘in Spirit’ would be partially equivalent to worshipping ‘in Jesus’. (Alan Kerr, The Temple of Jesus' Body: The Temple Theme in the Gospel of John [New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002], 192-94)

 The Book of Mormon Describing God as the "Great Spirit"

Bartosiewicz is not the first critic to use this "argument." On p. 226 of their book, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Mormons (Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House Publishers, 1995), Ron Rhodes and Marian Bodine argued that the Book of Mormon is in conflict with Latter-day Saint theology, citing Alma 22:10 and Alma 31:15:

And Aaron said unto him, Yea: he [God] is that Great Spirit, and he created all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this? (Alma 22:10)

Holy, holy God; we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever.

According to Rhodes and Bodine, the Book of Mormon explicates an incorporeal God, in opposition to D&C 130:20 and defined Latter-day Saint theology. However, just as Rhodes and Bodine are guilty of eisegesis in their treatment of various biblical texts (search this blog for previous discussions of their work), they are also guilty of eisegesis of the Book of Mormon.

With respect to Alma 22:10, the use of the phrase, "Great Spirit" was Ammon's way of communicating the concept of God to someone who knew deity as "Great Spirit." Furthermore, the people mistook Ammon for the Great Spirit, notwithstanding the fact he was clearly corporeal (see Alma 18:2-5, 11 [the texts Bartosiewicz references])! Obviously, use of the phrase does not preclude God being corporeal.

With respect to Alma 31:15, such a verse is part of a prayer of an apostate group, the Zoramites, and is not a reflection of the theology of the Book of Mormon prophets themselves so to claim that the theology of the Book of Mormon is in conflict with Latter-day Saint theology about the nature of God is a non sequitur. It would be similar to arguing that the Gospel of John denies the virginal conception and birth of Christ as the Jewish opponents of Jesus believe Joseph to have been the biological father of Jesus (John 6:42)! Of course, that would be a nonsensical reading of the Gospel of John when read in context, just as the charge made by anti-Mormons such as Bartosiewicz is nonsensical and reflective of an ignorance of the Book of Mormon text itself.

The Embodied God of the Bible

In reality, LDS theology on this point is biblical. Take, for instance, Heb 1:3:

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

This verse strongly supports the LDS view. As D. Charles Pyle wrote:

There is also scripture that can used to potentially support the idea that God could have a physical body. One of these is Hebrews 1:3. Christ could only be the exact representation of the Father if the Father himself possessed a body of some sort. In fact, some who wish to avoid what I feel is the plain meaning of Hebrews 1:3 actually go so far as to separate the natures of Christ or declare that the passage could not possibly infer that the Father is embodied.

Those who criticize this meaning thus, however, do not take into account the fact that there is not one portion of the passage that differentiates between the divine or human nature of Jesus. Secondly, the particle ων on indicates being, i.e., thepresent state of existence of Jesus from the perspective of the author of Hebrews. It has absolutely nothing to do with only Jesus’ previous state or of only a portion of his supposed dual nature. It only speaks of his total existence as a person.

Further, many grammarians have severely misunderstood the Greek απαυγασμα apaugasma (English: [active] effulgence or radiance; [middle, passive] reflection) in this passage to have the active sense. The Greek και kai (English: and) is here a coordinating conjunction which combines the first and second parts (the second part being of a passive character) of a parallel couplet. Due to this fact, as much as the Evangelicals wish doggedly to hold to their interpretation, the Greek απαυγασμα apaugasma should be understood as having a passive sense.

Why? Because the second portion of the couplet indicates that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature, not that he is synonymous with that nature. Since this passage is a couplet, with the second portion being passive in nature, the first portion must be understood as having a passive sense as well. Thus, Jesus is properly to be seen as he “who is the reflection of the glory (of God) and the exact representation of the substantial nature of him (i.e., the Father).”

In short, the glory of God reflects from Jesus rather than having Jesus as its source, according to the theology of the author of Hebrews. Thusly, Jesus exactly represents God as he exists in all aspects of Jesus’ existence. The passage does not allow differentiation of Jesus’ divine and human natures in relation to God. Quite the opposite is in view here, although I doubt that Evangelicals will wish to agree with my assessment of the passage. Nevertheless, if it is true that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature in all aspects, the Father must have possession of a physical body. Otherwise, Jesus is not and could not be the exact representation of the Father, for the two would differ. This fact is further strengthened by another pertinent fact: the Father is never said to be bodiless in any place within the text of the Bible. That was for a later generation to develop.

For more on this issue, see, for example, Anne Katherine Knafl, Forming God: Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch (Eisenbrauns, 2014) and Esther J. Hamori, "When Gods were Men": The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature (Walter de Gruyter, 2008)

God dwelling in the heart of a believer

Bartosiewicz claims that Alma 34:36 contradicts D&C 130:3 on the question of whether God can dwell in one’s heart. However, this is just proof that Bartosiewicz engages in quote-mining. If one reads the context, one will see that Alma is talking about the Spirit of the Lord (whether it is the Holy Spirit or the operational presence of the Father [the text is ambiguous on that point), and not the Lord Himself:

For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked. And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell; yea, and he has also said that the righteous shall sit down in his kingdom, to go no more out; but their garments should be made white, through the blood of the lamb. (Alma 34:35-36; emphasis added)

D&C 130:3 does not deny that the Spirit of the Lord can dwell in a man's heart; in fact, such is affirmed for the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, Bartosiewicz has to answer this question--does he believe in the hypostatic union, which states that Jesus Christ is eternally the "God-Man"? In Trinitarian Christology, Jesus will forever be embodied (something ratified at the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451). However, Bartosiewicz, I am guessing, like most other Protestants, do not believe that Christ's body can dwell in more than one place at a given moment (one of the key theological arguments Zwingli et al used against Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation during the Reformation). So, can the person of Jesus dwell in a believer's heart? His response, unless he wishes to engage in a Christological heresy, is to claim, no, only spiritually.

Can God change His mind?

Bartosiewicz argues that God cannot change His mind. However, this is more of his Evangelical (perhaps Reformed) Protestantism speaking and not biblical exegesis. In reality, he is yet again way out in left field on this issue. I highly recommend the paper from 1993 by Dr. Richard L. Pratt (a Reformed Presbyterian, one who holds to God having exhaustive foreknowledge [not an Open Theist]), “Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions.” On pp.12-13 of this paper, Pratt writes the following about Deut 18:18-20:

An alternative outlook would be to assume that Moses and his audience realized that unqualified predictions had implied conditions. If this dynamic was well-known, then he did not have to repeat it explicitly when he offered his criterion in Deuteronomy 18:22. In this view, Moses’ test instructed Israel to expect a prediction from a true prophet to come about, unless significant intervening contingencies interrupted.

This understanding of the Mosaic criterion may explain why so many passages

highlight the historical contingencies that interrupted many fulfillments. Old Testament writers accounted for the Mosaic test of false prophets by pointing out why the predictions of true prophets sometimes did not come true. For example, the writer of Jonah explains how the king of Nineveh ordered fasting and mourning by “every person (h’dm) and by every beast (whbhmh), herd (hbqr), and flock (whs‘n)” (Jon 3:7). The Chronicler used one of his most poignant theological terms (kn`) when he said that Rehoboam and the leaders of Judah “humbled themselves” (2 Chr 12:6). The writer of Kings described Josiah’s ritual tearing of his robe (2 Kgs 22:11). The specificity of these passages suggests that so long as Israelites could point to significant intervening contingencies, they had no trouble accepting interrupted predictions as originating with Yahweh.

Many critics will appeal to texts such as Malachi 3:6 to claim the effect that God does not change his mind, and, furthermore, such texts that speak of God changing His mind (e.g., Gen 6:6) are to be relegated as mere “anthropomorphisms.” Notwithstanding, such an approach is based on pure eisegesis. The context of Malachi 3:6 specifies that God’s exchangeability refers only to His unchanging willingness to forgive if the sinner repents, not that God cannot change His mind about previous decisions or about contingencies that arise in accordance with man’s free-will decisions (cf. Jeremiah 18:7-10).

Other passages which indicate that God “does not change” (e.g., Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Psalm 110:4; James 1:17) refer only to God’s inability to lie, take back an oath He made, tempt one to sin, or reverse decisions based on a capricious whim, since these would be adverse to His divine character.

Exodus 32-33 is a very potent example of (1) God changing his mind and (2) God’s personal nature. Let us look at it in point by point format:

1.     God determines to destroy all of Israel for worshipping the golden calf.

2.     Moses pleads with God to relent, reiterating the promise to Abraham and the potential mockery from Egypt.

3.     God rescinds His threat to destroy all of Israel, yet punishes the leading perpetrators.

4.     Moses spends 40 days prostrate and fasting to appease God for Israel’s sin.

5.     Although temporarily appeased, God refuses to go with the Israelites through the desert, because they are so “stiff-necked” he “might destroy them on the way.”

6.     Moses pleads again with God to change His mind.

7.     God changes His mind and decides to go with them.

8.     God then remarks on the intimate relationship He has with Moses as the basis of His decision to change His mind.

9.     God confirms this intimate relationship by showing Moses part of His actual appearance.

That the biblical authors held to this view can be seen in other places. InMicah 3:12, the prophet predicts the inevitable downfall of Jerusalem. This passage provides the only unambiguous instance in the Hebrew Bible of a prophetic message being specifically referred to in another prophetic collection, for it is discussed in Jeremiah 26:18-19. Jerusalem, however, had not fallen; but this does not mean that Micah was dismissed or condemned as a false prophet on the grounds that his prophecy had not been fulfilled, as Kramer’s reading would require. Rather, the claim is made that Hezekiah’s repentance had led Yahweh to change his mind and spare the city, and such a claim cannot readily be refuted. With his commitment to biblical inerrancy and sufficiency, Kramer is certainly in no position to dispute it. (See Richard J. Coggins, “Prophecy—True and False,” in Of Prophets’ Visions and the Wisdom of Sages: Essays in Honor of R. Norman Whybray on his Seventieth Birthday, ed. Heather A. McKay and David J. A. Clines [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993], 80-94).

God's "word" being "unchanging"

I already discussed Moroni 8:18 and related issues above. He also references Alma 41:8 which he purports to contradict D&C 56:4-5:

Now the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared them whosoever will may walk therein and be saved. (Alma 41:8)

Wherefore I the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord. Wherefore, I revoke the commandment which was given unto my servant Thomas, that he shall take up his journey speedily to the land of Missouri, and my servant, Selah J. Griffin shall also go with him. (D&C 56:4-5)

If Bartosiewicz wishes to absolutise such texts to produce a "contradiction," he will have to jettison Exo 32-33 and similar passages from the Bible (see above). Furthermore, he will have to throw out the book of Jonah and the following passage from Jeremiah, among many other passages:

If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planned, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. (Jer 18:7-10 NIV)

 In reality, there is yet again no meaningful contradiction. The commands or decrees will not change in their definition. Revoking means that God does not always require us to follow the commandment in question. Such was the case with the contingent promises discussed in D&C 56:4-5 as well as Jer 18:7-10.

For a further discussion on the redaction of the Bible, see How is the Book of Mormon, the Word of God, if it was ABRIDGED and Edited? (another response to Bartosiewicz.

Did God Support Polygamy?

Off the bat, Bartosiewicz shows his ignorance and lack of intellectual integrity by claiming Joseph Smith had “concubines,” not simply plural wives. For a scholarly treatment of Joseph Smith’s polygamy (something you will not get from Bartosiewicz), see, for instance:

Brian Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy (3 vols; Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013)

Brian Hales and Laura Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: Toward a Better Understanding (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2015)

The Persistence of Polygamy, vol 1: Joseph Smith and the Origins of Mormon Polygamy, eds. Craig L. Foster and Newell G. Bringhurst (Independence, Miss.: John Whiter Books, 2010)

Brian and Laura Hales’ Websites, “Joseph Smith’s Polygamy” and “Mormon Polygamy Documents”

Bartosiewicz comments about polyandry and other things have been refuted, and his comments on this claim are, putting things nicely, utterly facile.

Moreover, Bartosiewicz is dependent upon Grant Palmer for this false claim. For a refutation of Palmer's abuse of historical sources, see Brian C. Hales and Gregory L. Smith, "A Response to Grant Palmer's 'Sexual Allegations Against Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Polygamy in Nauvoo'"

Bartosiewicz claims that Jacob 1:15; 2:24 is contradicted by D&C 132:1, 37, 39, 61 about whether or not God finds polygamy “abominable.” However, yet again, Bartosiewicz is guilty of eisegesis.

Such verses in the Book of Mormon condemn the practice of plural marriage among the Nephites so they would not have an opportunity to partake of the excesses of kings David and Solomon. These excesses, due to lust, led to a case of adultery and the slaying of Bethsheba's husband, Uriah (which resulted in David losing his initial justification [he was involved, both directly and indirectly, in these heinous actions]) and to Solomon's taking of 1,000 wives and concubines, most of whom were from foreign nations Yahweh forbade Israelites to marry (1 Kgs 11:1-3).

It is interesting that Bartosiewicz will cite Jacob 2:24 but did not continue reading. Had he done so, he would have read verse 30, which blows him out of the water (square brackets added for clarification):

For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [to engage in plural marriage]; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things [monogamy].

The Book of Mormon does not state that all instance of plural marriages are an abomination before the eyes of God.

What is also often overlooked in this discussion is that Jacob 2: 24 is based on Deut 17:17, a text dealing with the ideal king from the perspective of the Deuteronomists:

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. (Jacob 2:24)

Neither shall he [the king] multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. (Deut 17:17)

The Deuteronomy text warns against a Davidic king “multiplying” the amount of possessions he has, including gold, silver, and horses (see v.16). Contextually, it should be obvious that what is being condemned is not a linear increase of such things, including wives, but an exponential and/or forbidden increase thereof. As mentioned previously, in the case of King Solomon, he had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (1 Kgs 11:3 [which also resulted in his embracing their idolatrous practices]), while David had an adulterous affair with Bathsheba, whom he would later marry as a polygynous wife, after murdering her husband to cover his tracks. Combined together, they truly had “many wives and concubines,” something condemned by Deut 17:17 and Jacob are unbecoming of a true Davidic king. That is what is abominable vis-à-vis the polygyny of David (and Solomon), not their polygyny per se, let alone the practice of polygyny in general.

Can Murder be Forgiven?

One last straw to clutch from Bartosiewicz's hand is his claim that 3 Nephi 30:1-2 contradicts D&C 42:18 on the question of whether murder can be forgiven.

3 Nephi 30:1-2 reads:

Hearken, O ye Gentiles, and hear the words of Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, which he hath commanded me that I should speak concerning you, for, behold, he commandeth me that I should write, saying: Turn, all ye Gentiles, from your wicked ways; and repent of your evil doings, of your lyings and deceivings, and of your whoredoms, and of your secret abominations, and your idolatries, and of your murders, and your priestcrafts, and your envyings, and your strifes, and from all your wickedness and abominations, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, that ye may receive a remission of your sins, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, that ye may be numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel.

D&C 42:18 reads (emphasis added):

And now, behold, I speak unto the church, Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.

The only thing this is evidence of is Bartosiewicz's non-existent reading and exegetical skills. 3 Nephi 30:1-2 is speaking about being forgiven of murders and other heinous sins one committed prior to one’s initial justification. The text in D&C 42:18 is speaking to those who have already been baptised and have had received an initial remission of one’s sins, through the instrumentality of water baptism, that is, to those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior and covenanted to obey the laws and ordinances of the gospel and then commits murder. It is comparing apples and oranges. Such is consistent with passages such as Hebrews 6:4-9 and 10:26-29.

Conclusion

According to Bartosiewicz in this 30 minute presentation, there are numerous examples of contradictions between the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. In reality, not only are there no true examples of a meaningful contradiction between the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, we have seen that there are a plethora of examples where Bartosiewicz's ignorance about basic logic, biblical exegesis, Latter-day Saint history and theology, as well as the text of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants themselves come out explicitly time and time again, as this paper has shown.

Bartosiewicz simply has no excuse; he used to be a Latter-day Saint, and many of these "contradictions" have been answered by LDS apologists and scholars. At the very least, had he actually some intellectual integrity, he should have interacted with such responses and (heaven forbid!) come up with new arguments. Again, Bartosiewicz failed on all counts.