In a recent facebook post, David Bartosiewicz wrote the following:
In 1834 to 1835, Joseph Smith Jr came up with the Lectures of Faith that were revelations from God to Joseph. I must say regarding Lectures of Faith on "The Godhead", I agree with him . . . . [quoting Lecture on Faith no. 5] There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space—They are the Father and the Son" (source)
There are many problems with this. First and foremost, this proves that Bartosiewicz is a binitarian who rejects the personality of the Holy Spirit! The Lectures on Faith, due to the theology of Sidney Rigdon (the author [more on this later]) held that the Father and the Son were persons, and the “Holy Spirit” was not a person, but the shared mind of the Father and Son. If Bartosiewicz agrees with such, he is a heretic by Evangelical Protestant standards! Of course, this is not the first time Bartosiewicz has said something that is heretical, even by Protestant standards.
I raise this point also to show the bankruptcy of his rejecting of the LDS Church and embrace of sola scriptura, as the latter, due to the scant explicit biblical proof of the personality of the Holy Spirit. Daniel Wallace, a leading Greek grammarian and a Reformed Protestant, has an insightful article entitled, "Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 13/1 (2003), pp. 97-125 (online here)/
What is interesting is that, notwithstanding Wallace’s Trinitarianism, he admits that the grammar of the New Testament does not prove the personality of the Holy Spirit, although this is the most common approach to proving the personality of the Spirit. I would recommend the entire article (even though it is a bit technical if one does not know biblical Greek), but some of Wallace’s concluding statements are enlightening:
There is no text in the NT that clearly or even probably affirms the personality of the Holy Spirit through the route of Greek grammar. The basis for this doctrine must be on other grounds. This does not mean that in the NT the Spirit is a thing, any more than in the OT the Spirit ( רוּחַ —a feminine noun) is a female! Grammatical gender is just that: grammatical. The conventions of language do not necessarily correspond to reality . . . One implication of these considerations is this: There is often a tacit assumption by scholars that the Spirit's distinct personality was fully recognized in the early apostolic period. Too often, such a viewpoint is subconsciously filtered through Chalcedonian lenses. This certainly raises some questions that can be addressed here only in part: We are not arguing that the distinct personality and deity of the Spirit are foreign to the NT, but rather that there is progressive revelation within the NT, just as there is between the Testaments . . . In sum, I have sought to demonstrate in this paper that the grammatical basis for the Holy Spirit's personality is lacking in the NT, yet this is frequently, if not usually, the first line of defense of that doctrine by many evangelical writers. But if grammar cannot legitimately be used to support the Spirit's personality, then perhaps we need to reexamine the rest of our basis for this theological commitment. I am not denying the doctrine of the Trinity, of course, but I am arguing that we need to ground our beliefs on a more solid foundation.
Why is this so significant? We are told by Protestants that Sola and Tota Scriptura has to be embraced; if not, the so-called theological walls break down and all sorts of heresies will be embraced as true (they [rightfully] appeal to the Marian Dogmas within Catholicism as the consequence of accepting a false teaching authority). However, we are also told that the personality of the Holy Spirit, which is an integral part of the doctrine of the Trinity, is an essential belief one must hold to—if not, one is a heretic. However, using the framework of Sola and Tota Scriptura, as Wallace shows, there is no good biblical proof of the personality of the Spirit. Where does this leave the Trinitarian who holds to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? They must reject the personality of the Spirit, and therefore, embrace a form of bi-theism, with the Spirit being the operational presence of the Father and/or the Son, not a third person or they must hold to the claim that the biblical authors were very, very sloppy, not enunciating clearly an essential doctrine for salvation (which would also be a rejection of the so-called perspicuity or clearness of the Bible), or alternatively, go down the route Wallace has in the past, and that the earliest New Testament authors did not believe the Spirit to be a person—Wallace appealed to 1 Cor 8;4-6 in an interview with former Jehovah’s Witnesses (accessible here) as proof Paul did not hold to the personality of the Spirit. Unitarian apologist, Jaco Van Zyl, hit the head on the nail when he wrote:
Wallace admits here what very few Trinitarians are willing to say, especially Dr James White (who argues for a fully developed Trinity doctrine as early as 36 C.E.), namely that Paul and the other NT writers of his time “did not understand the Trinity.” To him 1 Corinthians 8:6 gives an indication of a “primitive binitarian viewpoint.” These admissions are certainly not free from rather serious implications which will be discussed below . . .For Wallace to admit that NT writers did not understand the Trinity implies that later Fourth- and Fifth-Century Christians discerned and believed what “inspired” bible writers failed to believe. This argument is therefore no different from the claims made by the very ones Wallace and others are trying to help since the Jehovah’s Witnesses also proclaim that Jesus and the apostles didn’t know that Jesus would return in 1914 C.E., or that the first Christians did not know that the “great multitude” of Revelation 7:9 would be a second class of Christians gathered since 1935 with a different hope than the literal 144 000 anointed class of Revelation 14, etc.; there is absolutely no difference in argumentation. At least it can be safely said, considering Wallace’s admission, that the first Christians did not believe in the Trinity formulated in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries – that who and what God was to them was different from who God was to these first Christians. The implications of this admission are rather significant.
Trinitarian apologist, Tony Costa, also admitted the same thing as Wallace:
. . . It should also be added that the words for worship in Paul are never used of or for the Holy Spirit . . . While I will examine some Pauline passages that include the risen Jesus in various expressions and acts of worship it should be stated that there are no such examples of worship or expressions or acts of worship being given to the Holy Spirit. In short, there is no evidence that the Holy Spirit was directly worshipped in the Pauline faith communities and the Pauline letters do not seem to show any indication that the Spirit was worshipped. While the Pauline letters exhibit evidence of triadic passages (Rom 8:1-4; 1 Cor 12:4-6; 2 Cor 13:13[14]; Gal 4:4-6; cf. Eph 1:3-14; 4:4-6; 2 Thess 2:13-14; Titus 3:4-6), Paul never makes the Holy Spirit a recipient of worship as he does with God. The Holy Spirit in Paul seems to play a subjective experiential role in Christian worship as Paul describes his communities as those “who worship by the Spirit of God” (Phil 3:3 ESV) but again is never the object or recipient of worship. The NET for Phil 3:3n5tc states that “the NT does not seem to speak of worshiping the Spirit explicitly” (italics in original). The closest one comes to seeing a possible reference to a form of worship by way of prayer to the Holy Spirit is in the sole passage of 2 Cor 13:13(14), a passage I will deal with below under “Wish Prayers” . . . (Tony Costa, Worship and the Risen Jesus in the Pauline Letters [Studies in Biblical Literature vol. 157; New York: Peter Lang, 2013], 317 n. 18)
Ultimately, this route makes the apostle Paul and other early New Testament authors and believers heretics by the standards of modern Trinitarians, and are condemned under the same anathema the Judaizers were condemned with (Gal 1:6-9). Wallace, Bartosiewicz, and others are in an unenviable position.
Fortunately, Latter-day Saints, not being bound under the false doctrines of Sola and Tota Scriptura, embrace other authorities, including D&C 130:22 which teaches the personality of the Holy Spirit. Unlike Trinitarians who are Protestants, and as a result, do not privilege, for instance, the Council of Constantinople (AD 381) as Catholicism does that teaches the personality of the Holy Spirit, Latter-day Saints can consistently affirm a belief in the Holy Spirit as a third person of the Godhead. This should give our Evangelical critics some pause, as they are clearly in a theological dilemma.
Furthermore, the personality of the Holy Spirit is explicated in sources pre-dating the Lectures on Faith, including the Book of Mormon:
And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying: Hosanna to the Lord, the most high God, for he is God over all the earth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou believest in the Son of the most high God: wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou has desired. And behold this thing shall be given unto thee for a sign that after thou hast behold the tree which bore the fruit which thy father tasted, thou shalt also behold a man descending out of heaven, and him shall ye witness; and after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear record that it is the Son of God. (1 Nephi 11:5-6)
Furthermore, Bartosiewicz demonstrates he is grossly ignorant of LDS history. It is generally agreed by competent historians and researchers that Sidney Rigdon was the author of the Lectures on Faith (at least Lecture on Faith number 5).
For instance, consider the following:
As Larry E. Dahl wrote in his essay, "Authorship and History of the Lectures on Faith” we read the following:
Who Wrote the Lectures on Faith?
It is a common understanding that Joseph Smith wrote the Lectures on Faith. Often we hear or read statements like “The Prophet Joseph Smith taught” as an introduction to a quotation from the Lectures. Those who have carefully studied the historical sources agree to the Prophet’s close involvement with the Lectures, but acknowledge that others contributed heavily in their preparation, as the following representative quotations from Church leaders and others show:
1. The idea has been expressed that Sidney Rigdon wrote these lectures, but they were compiled by a number of the brethren and the Prophet himself had the final revision of them (Smith, Church History137).
2. “Lectures on Faith” written by Sidney Rigdon and others . . . (Widtsoe 2).
3. Joseph Smith was not their sole author, but they were written by a committee over which he presided. . . . It is not known specifically which member, or members, of the committee put the Lectures on Faith in their written form. But there can be no doubt that the theological ideas which they contain came from Joseph Smith. All the major ideas within them can be found in his revelations and teachings before 1834 (Andrus 20 fn).
4. These statements that I now read were in part written by the Prophet and in whole approved by him and taught by him in the School of the Prophets (McConkie 4).
5. My analysis of the Lectures on faith [sic] leads me to three somewhat tentative conclusions: First, although Joseph Smith did not write the lectures as they appear in the 1835 version, his influence can be seen in images, examples, scriptural references, and phrasing. Second, Sidney Rigdon may well have prepared them for publication; however, the style throughout is not consistently his. Third, the lectures in their published version represent a compilation or collaboration rather than the work of a single person (Partridge 28).
It is instructive to review the evidence that links Joseph Smith and others to the writing of the Lectures. First, perhaps, it should be noted that a committee of four men—Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick O. Williams (all presiding officers in the Church)—was appointed 24 September 1834 “to arrange the items of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, for the government of the Church of Latter-day Saints. These items are to be taken from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations which have been given to the Church up to this date, or that shall be given until such arrangements are made” (HC 2:165). That committee reported to the priesthood councils of the Church nearly one year later, 17 August 1835, recommending the publication of a book they had prepared (HC 2:243–51). That book consisted of two parts. The first contained the Lectures on Faith; the second consisted of selected revelations and inspired declarations received since the beginning of this dispensation. The two parts together made up what were called the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church. The priesthood councils and other Church members assembled accepted the committee’s recommendation. The result was the publication of the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, which came off the press about the middle of September 1835. (Writing from Kirtland to the Saints in Missouri under the date of 16 September 1835, W. W. Phelps said, “We received some of the Commandments from Cleveland last week. I shall try and send 100 copies to the Saints in Zion this fall” (Journal History [16 Sep 1835]). An earlier compilation of revelations known as the Book of Commandments was being printed in 1833, when mobs destroyed the church press and all but a few copies of the book.)
While it is true that the Lectures on Faith were part of the Doctrine and Covenants (being the “Doctrine” section with the revelations being the “Covenants) from 1835 until they were removed in 1921, early Latter-day Saints differentiated between the non-inspired nature of the Lectures on Faith and the inspired/God-breathed nature of the “Covenants.” For instance, The Prophet's uncle, John Smith, represented the Kirtland High Council and quote him as having said, "...that the revelations in said book were true, and the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine." Levi Jackman, representing the High Council in Missouri "bore testimony that the revelations in said book were true, and the said High Council of Missouri accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote." (See History of the Church 2:244) Clearly, by specifying the "revelations" they were emphasizing an important distinction.
When the book was published, the preface explained that "the first part of the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them into the following work. The second part contains items or principles for the regulation of the church, as taken from the revelations which have been given since its organization, as well as from former ones."
This is not to say that the Lectures on Faith are worthless, just that they have been superseded by explicit revelation, and have to be used cautiously. As an example of the worth one can get out of them, taking the necessary care, can be seen in the following commentary by Blake Ostler:
The Lectures also establish that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as one Godhead, “constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things: by whom all things were created and made” (V, 2). Thus, the attributes of godliness do not necessarily define the individual divine persons; rather, they are properties of the Godhead as a unity of persons. Indeed, the Lectures teach that it is in virtue of the oneness or unity of the divine persons that they have the divine attributes:
The glory which the Father and the Son have, is because they are just and holy beings; and that if they were lacking in one attribute or perfection which they have, the glory which they have, never could be enjoyed by them; for it requires them to be precisely what they are in order to enjoy it; and if the Savior gives his glory to others, he must do it in the very way set forth in his prayer to his Father [in John 17]: by making them one with him, as he and the Father are one.—In so doing he would give them the glory which the Father has given him; and when his disciples are made one with the Father and the Son, as the father and the Son are one, who cannot see the propriety of the Savior’s saying, The works which I do, shall they do; and greater works then these shall they do because I go to the Father (VII, 15)
Thus the attributes of God arise in virtue of the relationship of unity enjoyed by the individual divine persons only when united as one in the Godhead. Each of these attributes and perfections of character is deemed by the lectures to be essential to divine glory and status. However, the attributes are essential not in virtue of some logical necessity but are necessary to allow any rational being to exercise faith. Further, the very glory that God enjoys in virtue of possessing such attributes is communicable to humans when they enter the divine unity. (Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, vol. 1: The Attributes of God [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2001], 73-74)
Such is part-and-parcel of modern LDS theology, including its Christology.
Bartosiewicz and some others have made comments on the thread about LDS theology, its development, and its relationship to the Bible; for a discussion of such topics, see, for instance, these previous responses to Bartosiewicz:
Why Latter-day Saints cannot believe Evangelical Protestantism is True: A Response to Dave Bartosiewicz
Another (ignorant) commentator, Benjamin Reed, also claimed that Joseph's theology prior to 1834 was that of Modalism. For informed refutations of such nonsense, see, for example:
Does the Book of Mormon teach Modalism?
1 Nephi 11 and the Christology of the Book of Mormon
Blake Ostler on the Christology of Mosiah 15
Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen, "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Early Myths"(review of Kurt Widmer, Mormonism and the Nature of God: A Theological Revolution, 1830-1915
Another (ignorant) commentator, Benjamin Reed, also claimed that Joseph's theology prior to 1834 was that of Modalism. For informed refutations of such nonsense, see, for example:
Does the Book of Mormon teach Modalism?
1 Nephi 11 and the Christology of the Book of Mormon
Blake Ostler on the Christology of Mosiah 15
Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen, "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Early Myths"(review of Kurt Widmer, Mormonism and the Nature of God: A Theological Revolution, 1830-1915
As with Bartosiewicz, this particular individual's claims are intellectually bankrupt (hardly surprising as he referenced something written by the IRR!)
What is obvious is that Bartosiewicz is (1) ignorant of LDS history; (2) ignorant of LDS Scriptures; (3) inept at theology, including biblical exegesis , and (4) while purporting to be an Evangelical Protestants, has, even by Protestant standards, a warped theology (e.g., binitarian view of God vs. Trinitarian). Coupled with his lack of intellectual integrity, he is not a trustworthy source of information, not just on “Mormonism” but the Bible, too.