Trinitarian Apologist teaching Modalism

I just came across this meme from the Zondervan twitter account:

The theology of this meme is actually not Trinitarian, but Modalism.

There is no God but one, and He is Father, Spirit, and Son.

Notice the use of a singular person pronoun; "God" is actually a "He" notwithstanding being "Father, Spirit, and Son." Continuing, it reads:

There is no God but one, and He is Jesus.

So, "Jesus" exhausts the category of "God." But from above, one reads that "God" is "Father, Spirit, and Son." If Jesus = God, ergo, Jesus = Father, Spirit, and Son (a "He").

This meme, instead of teaching (Creedal/Latin) Trinitarianism, where there is (albeit, an ambiguous) distinction between the "persons" of the Father, Son, and Spirit, teaches Modalism. I am surprised that Zondervan would not "catch" this, but it does show that defenders of the Trinity inevitable end up teaching heresy due to the unbiblical and illogical nature of the doctrine.

This video from Lutheran Satire is rather á propos:

Thank God for the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the prophet Joseph Smith; as Latter-day Saints, we possess the true, biblical Jesus. I do hope and pray that Trinitarians, even our critics, will come to know the true Gospel which is possessed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (cf. D&C 1:30).


Support Scriptural Mormonism

Spiritual Sons/Daughters of God being “Adopted” in LDS Soteriology

A common criticism of Latter-day Saint soteriology focuses upon the fact that, notwithstanding LDS theology that we are all the spiritual sons/daughters of God, we have to be “adopted” as sons/daughters. Some claim that texts in the New Testament that speak of “adoption” (Greek: υἱοθεσία) such as Rom 8:15 is biblical evidence against LDS theology, and various texts in uniquely LDS Scriptural texts is further evidence of how “Mormon” theology is inconsistent with LDS Scriptures. This post will tackle this issue.

Firstly, there is very strong exegetical evidence from the Bible supporting the LDS view that we are the spiritual children of God. I have discussed this issue before, so I won’t rehash the issues here; see:

The "Mormon Jesus" being a "Spirit Brother" of Satan--what the Bible really says

Latter-day Saint Theology and Acts 17:28-29

See also the great essay by Dana M. Pike, Exploring the Biblical Phrase "God of the Spirits of All Flesh" that appeared in Bountiful Harvest: Essays in Honor of S. Kent Brown, eds. Andrew C. Skinner, D. Morgan Davis, and Carl W. Griffin (2011)

Secondly, in Latter-day Saint soteriology, notwithstanding being the sons and daughters of God, as a result of the Fall, we have become both morally and epistemologically fallen and, as a result, are in a spiritually estranged state. As the brother of Jared said:

O Lord, thou hast said that we must be encompassed about by the floods. Now behold, O Lord, and do not be angry with thy servant because of his weakness before thee; for we know that thou art holy and dwellest in the heavens, and that we are unworthy before thee; because of the fall our natures have become evil continually; nevertheless, O Lord, thou hast given us a commandment that we must call upon thee, that from thee we may receive according to our desires. (Ether 3:2)

As King Benjamin said in his famous farewell address:

For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father. (Mosiah 3:9)

Thirdly, the ancient concept of adoption is not one-to-one-equivalent to our modern practice of adoption. Indeed, the ancient practice often entailed a biological child being adopted by their biological father. As one non-LDS systematic theologian wrote:

Today, when one speaks of adoption, he refers to the legal process whereby a stranger becomes a member of the family. In Paul’s time, however, adoptions referred to that legal process whereby a parent placed his own child in the legal position of an adult son, with all the privileges of inheritance. Someone may question why adoption was required when the child was already a son by birth. It must be remembered that in pagan Rome, a citizen often had many wives and many children. Some of the wives may have been concubines and slaves. The citizen may not have wanted the offspring of his slave wives to receive his titles, position in society, and inheritance. The legal procedure of adoption, therefore, provided a means whereby the citizen could designate those children which he wished to be considered his legal sons and heirs. Through receiving newness of life, believers become children of God. Through adoption, the children of God are declared to be His sons, who have all the privileges and inheritance of sonship. (Alva G. Huffer, Systematic Theology [Oregon, Illin.: The Restitution Herald, 1960], 390)

Such concepts fits perfectly with Latter-day Saint soteriology on many points.

While much more could be said, it is clear that, instead of being both internally inconsistent and inconsistent with biblical theology, Latter-day Saint theology is both internally consistent and consistent with biblical theology on this (and many other) areas.

Support Scriptural Mormonism

The Council of Constance vs. Vatican I

In the document issued during Vatican I (1869-70), Pastor Aeternus, we read the following in paragraph 4 that defined, dogmatically, the nature and criteria of papal infallibility:

1838 [DS 3072] [Definition of infallibility]. But since in this very age, in which the salutary efficacy of the apostolic duty is especially required, not a few are found who disparage its authority, We deem it most necessary to assert solemnly the prerogative which the Only-begotten Son of God deigned to enjoin with the highest pastoral office.

1839 [DS 3073] And so We, adhering faithfully to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God, our Savior, the elevation of the Catholic religion and the salvation of Christian peoples, with the approbation of the sacred Council, teach and explain that the dogma has been divinely revealed: [DS 3074] that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, possesses that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His church be endowed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff of themselves, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.

It is the portion I have put in red which I wish to discuss. According to the definition of the dogma by Pius IX (same pope who dogmatised the Immaculate Conception in 1854), when all the criteria of infallibility are met (the only undisputed instance, post-1870, of this occurring was on November 1, 1950, when Pius XII defined the Bodily Assumption of Mary), the dogmatic definitions of the Roman Pontiff are binding in and of themselves, not from the consensus of the Church. Furthermore, this document and council settled a dispute about which is superior: the pope or the councils? This dogmatic constitution and Vatican I clearly came down on the former; the problem, however, is that another ecumenical (ergo, infallible in its decrees) council stated the opposite. In the decree Haec sancta from the Council of Constance, dated April 6, 1415, we read the following:

This holy Synod of Constance, which forms an ecumenical council, legitimately assembled for the eradication of the present schism and for the unity and reform of the church of God, head and members, to the praise of almighty God in the Holy Spirit: in order to achieve the unity and reform of the church of God more easily, safely, richly and freely, ordains, defines, decrees, decides and declares the following:

First, this synod, legitimately assembled in the Holy Spirit, forms an ecumenical council and represents the Catholic Church in dispute, has its authority directly from Christ; everyone, of whatever estate or dignity, even if this be papal, is bound to be it in matters relating to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the universal reformation of this church of God, head and members.

Similarly, anyone, of whatever condition, estate, and dignity, even if this be papal, who stubbornly refuses obedience to the commands, resolutions, ordinances, or precepts of this holy synod and any other general council legitimately assembled in respect of what is said above and all that has happened and is to happen in respect of this, shall, if he does not come to his right mind, be subject to the appropriate punishment and be duly punished, by other legal means should this be necessary. (Hans Küng, Christianity: Essence, History, and Future [trans. John Bowden; New York: Continuum, 1994], 466; emphasis added)

As Küng notes (ibid., 467) about the trouble Constance posed to the papacy (emphasis in original):

No wonder that advocates of a curial ecclesiology did not hesitate to claim that the decrees of Constance were not binding, with often very strange, pseudo-historical arguments. Constance, it was said, had not been ‘approved’ by the Pope, so its decrees are not formally in force. But I already demonstrated in Structures of the Church (written in 1962, already before the Second Vatican Council), how threadbare such an argument is. For in the real ecumenical councils of the real ecumenical councils of the first millennium, in any case the question of a formal papal approval was never raised; the approval of the emperor was decisive and people were content with the general consensus of the Bishop of Rome as patriarch of the West. Papal consent only arose at the medieval general synods, which were wholly dominated by the Popes. But at the Council of Constance, which again understood itself to represent the whole church, explicit papal approval was no longer thought necessary. Precisely because the council derived its authority directly from Christ, precisely because it stood above the Pope (or rather above the three Popes), the question of papal approval never arose from the start.

As with the Bodily Assumption (1950) and Immaculate Conception (1854), this dogma, which is said to be part of “Apostolic Tradition,” is ahistorical, as are Rome’s other dogmas.




Support Scriptural Mormonism

R.C.H. Lenski on Amos 9:11 (LXX) and Acts 15

In a previous blog post, Latter-day Saints and the Bible, I made the following comment about James’ use of Amos 9:11 in the LXX (vs. the Hebrew) during the Council of Jerusalem:

Therefore, a text or series of texts that may be seen as “weak” at best, in light of further explicit revelation, be used by the Church to support a doctrine. 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).

The following is Lenski, a conservative Lutheran, on the relevant textual issues:

            That glorious promise was now being fulfilled. But not in Israel alone, and not by building the church out of Jews only. Amos, like the other prophets, was permitted to see that the great restored Tabernacle of David would include also the Gentiles. The ἄν is rarely used with ὅπως in the New Testament (R. 986); but it does not add “an additional note of uncertainty,” for the entire note is one of expectancy, the connective denoting divine purpose, and God’s purposes are always realized. The Hebrew reads: “That they may possess the remnant of Edom and of all the heathen,” etc.; the LXX translate: “That those remaining of men may seek out [the Lord], and all the Gentiles,” etc. It seems as though the translation of the LXX was made from a text that had the Hebrew reading adam (men) instead of ʾedom (Edom) and the verb yidroshu (seek) instead of yiroshu (possess). The question is one that concerns the Hebrew text. James was content with the rendering of the LXX. As far as possessing Edom is concerned, Amos certainly did not have in mind a political possession, for he adds “all the heathen” (goyim), and no prophet spoke of a political domination of all the heathen or Gentiles on the part of Israel. This possession would be entirely spiritual. Perhaps that is the reason that James left the LXX as it was.

He was concerned mainly with this word about “all the Gentiles.” God’s great purpose in restoring David’s Tabernacle reached out to “all the Gentiles,” including, of course, also Edom, as we have already seen that it included also the Samaritans (8:5, etc.). However the textual question regarding the Hebrew and the LXX is answered, the point of the quotation is not affected as far as the use made of it by James is concerned. The great Messianic restoration was intended most particularly for the Gentiles, their coming into it made David’s Tabernacle greater than ever. The limiting relative clause, “upon whom has been called my name,” states that this divine purpose will be fulfilled only in the case of the believing Gentiles. The addition ἐπʼ αὑτούς is a case of incorporating a redundant antecedent into the relative clause: “upon whom my name has been called, upon them,” R. 723. The masculine relative after τὰ ἔθνη is used because persons are referred to.

To call the Lord’s name upon the Gentiles is to bring them the revelation of the Lord (see ὄνομα in 2:21, 28; 3:6); note the same expression in James 2:7 (Greek). To have that name called upon one again and again (perfect tense) is to be present where that name and revelation constantly resounds, namely in the worship of God’s people. The relative clause thus designates these Gentiles as believing worshippers. “All” considers them as being many. In the A. V. note the marginal note with 9:12, which renders the Hebrew exactly.

The close of the quotation is: “saith the Lord who does these things,” λέγει Κύριος ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα. This statement sets the prophet’s seal on his utterance as being the Lord’s own word, the word of him who carries out what he says. We cannot omit the article before the participle as a few texts do, because this would result in the impossible sense: “Saith the Lord by doing these things,” this is contrary also to the Hebrew. (R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles [Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961], 610-11)




Support Scriptural Mormonism

Responding to a laughable critic on Joseph Smith's boasting

I just received an email from Dave Bartosiewicz in response to my post, Matthew 16:19 and the meaning of "keys," "binding," and "loosing" with the heading “You are laughable” so of course, a lot of projection from Dave was contained therein. He made the following “argument” against Joseph Smith:

 [L]earn to become a bit more humble. It seems that you think you are a "know it all on every subject" which to me shows a person who has great deal of boasting going on. Maybe you are compensating for something that you don't have. Don't know.  You should know that especially since your founder followed the same manner as you:

"Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet...When they can get rid of me, the devil will also go." (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408, 409  Joseph Smith.

There are a number of problems with his use (actually, abuse) of HOC 6:408, 409 and Joseph Smith’s comments.

Firstly, Joseph Smith explicitly stated that he was going to mirror the apostle Paul from 2 Cor 11, where we read the following:

I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little (2 Cor 11:16)

But Dave obviously missed that portion out (let us be honest—he just cut and paste it without reading the portions before and after this section for context). Here is the text immediately preceding Joseph Smith’s comments that Dave and others love to abuse vis eisegesis:

President Joseph Smith read the 11th Chap. 2 Corinthians. My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did. I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me so curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster; I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies are no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down--but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them. (one can find this section of the History of the Church [7 vols.] online here; one can see the handwritten record of this speech as well as the transcript at the Joseph Smith papers here)

One non-LDS scholar recently wrote the following about Paul's "boasting":

Second Corinthians resonates powerfully with Enochic ascent traditions in other ways. Paul was taken up to paradise and the third heaven (2 Cor. 12:2, 4). In 2 Enoch paradise, the ultimate abode of the righteous, designed after the garden of Eden, is likewise in the third heaven. In 3 Enoch, the visionary who journeys to heaven is not Enoch, but Rabbi Ishmael. He speaks with Enoch/Metatron in heaven. He reveals divine knowledge to the rabbi. Ishmael’s goal is “to behold the vision of the chariot” (3 En. 1:1). 3 Enoch is an important example of merkabah mysticism, a late antique phenomenon in the context of which rabbis devised various ecstatic techniques one could use to obtain a vision of the “chariot,” a reference to God seated upon his heavenly throne. Paul may have used some of these practices to attain the vision mentioned in 2 Corinthians 12 . . . Paul’s assertion about his vision can also be helpfully interpreted in relation to ancient Jewish accounts of heavenly ascents (2 Cor. 12:6). One of the Dead Sea Scrolls, entitled the Self-Glorification Hymn (4Q491c), contains an account of someone claiming to have had some sort of experience in heaven that transformed him. He asserts that he is now among the angels. He boasts about his transformed status. He asks “Who is comparable to me in my glory?” (line 8) Moreover, the speaker claims that because of this experience, he is able to endure sorrow and suffering as no one else can (line 9).

Paul has a lot to be modest about. Moreover, he asserts that he was given a thorn in the flesh and torments by Satan, so that he may not become too elated (verse 7). He experiences weakness and hardships which he gladly boasts about (verses 11-12). Such boasting makes sense in the context of his view, common throughout his letters, that the heavenly world is radically distinguished from the worldly plane of existence. Weakness, like foolishness, for Paul while bad from a conventional, or one could say “worldly” perspective, become emblems of affinity with heaven (for example, 1 Cor. 1:25-27). Weakness and hardship are, in the mindset of Paul, worthy of boasting. And they, so understood, are not dissimilar to ascent visions, since both signify affinity with the heavenly realm. Paul turns to both his suffering and his ascent to bolster his authority among the Corinthians (2 Cor. 11:7; 12:11). The Self-Glorification Hymn suggests Paul’s combination of these two themes of suffering and ascension is not simply a topos unique to his thought or social situation. It is compatible with how other Jews in antiquity described their visions of heavenly ascent. (Matthew Goff, “Heavenly Mysteries and Otherwordly Journeys Interpreting 1 and 2 Corinthians in Relation to Jewish Apocalypticism” in Gabriele Boaccaccini and Carlos A. Segovia, eds. Paul the Jew: Rereading the Apostle as a Figure of Second Temple Judaism [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016], pp. 133-48, here, pp. 142-144)

One does wonder if Dave will be consistent and condemn the apostle Paul? As an aside, the Self-Glorification hymn from Qumran reads thusly:

1 […] has done awesome things marvellously […] 2 [… in the streng]th of his power the just exult, and the holy ones  rejoice in […] in justice 3 […] he established [I]srael from eternity; his truth and the mysteries of his wisdom in al[l generations …] might 4 […] … […] … and the council of the poor for an eternal congregation. […] the perfect ones of 5 [… et]ernal; a mighty throne in the congregation of the gods above which none of the kings of the East shall sit, and their nobles no[t …] silence (?) 6 […] my glory is in{comparable} and besides me no-one is exalted, nor comes to me, for I reside in […], in the heavens, and there is no 7 […] … I am counted among the gods and my dwelling is in the holy congregation; [my] des[ire] is not according to the flesh, [but] all that is precious to me is in (the) glory (of) 8 […] the holy [dwel]ling. [W]ho has been considered despicable on my account? And who is comparable to me in my glory? Who, like the sailors, will come back and tell? 9 […] Who bea[rs all] sorrows like me? And who [suffe]rs evil like me? There is no-one. I have been instructed, and there is no teaching comparable 10 [to my teaching …] And who will attack me when [I] op[en my mouth]? And who can endure the flow of my lips? And who will confront me and retain comparison with my judgment? 11 [… friend of the king, companion of the holy ones … incomparable, f]or among the gods is [my] posi[tion, and] my glory is with the sons of the king. To me (belongs) [pure] gold, and to me, the gold of Ophir 12 […] Blank […] Blank […] 13 [… exult,] just ones, in the God of […] in the holy dwelling, sing for h[im …] 14 [… p]roclaim during the meditation jubilation […] in eternal happiness; and there is no … […] 15 […] to establish the horn of [his] Mess[iah …] 16 […] to make known his  power with strength […] 17 […] … […] (Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 981)

Secondly, people appointed by God doing greater works than Jesus Himself was promised by none other than Jesus Christ Himself; Dave should do himself a favour and actually read the Bible he believes to be the final authority á la sola scriptura. In John 14:12, we read the following from Jesus:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.

The term translated as "greater" in this verse is μειζονα, the neuter plural accusative comparative form of μεγας. This Greek term does not refer to simply a greater quantity of works done, but a greater quality thereof. Had John wished to convey this, he would have used περισσοτέρως which have the meaning of "more abundantly" (e.g., 2 Cor 1:12).

Μειζονα being used to denote qualitatively greater works can be seen in the following passages in the New Testament:

Greater (μείζονα) love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater (μείζονα) sin. (John 19:11)

But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent (μείζονα) way. (1 Cor 12:31)

Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater (μείζονα) riches than treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompense of the reward. (Heb 11:26)

But he giveth more (μείζονα) grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. (Jas 4:6)

In the standard scholarly lexicon of the Greek New Testament, BDAG, the following appears under the definition of μεγας; note how that it references John 14:12 in a similar way to that discussed above (emphasis added):

3. pert. to being above standard in intensity, great δύναμις Ac 4:33; 19:8 D. Esp. of sound: loud φωνή Mk 15:37; Lk 17:15; Rv 1:10; φωνῇ μεγάλῃ (LXX; TestAbr A 5 p. 82, 20f [Stone p. 12]; ParJer 2:2; ApcMos 5:21) Mt 27:46, 50; Mk 1:26; 5:7; 15:34; Lk 4:33; 8:28; 19:37; 23:23 (Φωναῖς μεγάλαις), 46; J 11:43; Ac 7:57, 60; 8:7; Rv 5:12; 6:10 al.; μεγ. φωνῇ (ParJer 5:32); Ac 14:10; 16:28; μεγ. τῇ φωνῇ (ParJer 9:8; Jos., Bell. 6, 188) 14:10 v.l.; 26:24; ἐν φωνῇ μ. Rv 5:2. μετὰ σάλπιγγος μεγάλης with a loud trumpet call Mt 24:31. κραυγή (Ex 11:6; 12:30) Lk 1:42; Ac 23:9; cp. μεῖζον κράζειν cry out all the more Mt 20:31. κοπετός (Gen 50:10) Ac 8:2.—Of natural phenomena: ἄνεμος μ. a strong wind J 6:18; Rv 6:13. λαῖλαψ μ. (Jer 32:32) Mk 4:37. βροντή (Sir 40:13) Rv 14:2. χάλαζα Rv 11:19; 16:21a. χάλαζα λίαν μ. σφόδρα AcPl Ha 5, 7. σεισμὸς μ. (Jer 10:22; Ezk 3:12; 38:19; Jos., Ant. 9, 225) Mt 8:24; 28:2; Lk 21:11a; Ac 16:26. γαλήνη μ. a deep calm Mt 8:26; Mk 4:39; φῶς μ. a bright light (JosAs 6:3; ParJer 9:18 [16]; Plut., Mor. 567f: a divine voice sounds forth from this light; Petosiris, fgm. 7, ln. 39 τὸ ἱερὸν ἄστρον μέγα ποιοῦν φῶς) Mt 4:16a; GJs 19:2 (Is 9:1). καῦμα μ. intense heat Rv 16:9 (JosAs 3:3).—Of surprising or unpleasant events or phenomena of the most diverse kinds (ἀπώλεια Dt 7:23; θάνατος Ex 9:3; Jer 21:6; κακόν Philo, Agr. 47) σημεῖα (Dt 6:22; 29:2) Mt 24:24; Lk 21:11b; Ac 6:8. δυνάμεις 8:13. ἔργα μ. mighty deeds (cp. Judg 2:7) Rv 15:3. μείζω τούτων greater things than these J 1:50 (μείζονα v.l.); cp. 5:20; 14:12. διωγμὸς μ. a severe persecution Ac 8:1; θλῖψις μ. (a time of) great suffering (1 Macc 9:27) Mt 24:21; Ac 7:11; Rv 2:22; 7:14. πειρασμός AcPl Ha 8, 22. πληγή (Judg 15:8; 1 Km 4:10, 17 al.; TestReub 1:7; TestSim 8:4; Philo, Sacr. Abel. 134) 16:21b. θόρυβος GJs 21:1; AcPl Ha 1, 28f (restored, s. AcPlTh [Aa I 258, 6]) λιμὸς μ. (4 Km 6:25; 1 Macc 9:24) Lk 4:25; Ac 11:28; ἀνάγκη μ. Lk 21:23; πυρετὸς μ. a high fever (s. πυρετός) 4:38.—Of emotions: χαρά great joy (Jon 4:6; JosAs 3:4; 4:2 al.; Jos., Ant. 12, 91) Mt 2:10; 28:8; Lk 2:10; 24:52. φόβος great fear (X., Cyr. 4, 2, 10; Menand., fgm. 388 Kö.; Jon 1:10, 16; 1 Macc 10:8; TestAbr B 13 p. 117, 18 [Stone p. 82]; JosAs 6:1; GrBar 7:5) Mk 4:41; Lk 2:9; 8:37; Ac 5:5, 11; AcPl Ha 3, 33. θυμὸς μ. fierce anger (1 Macc 7:35) Rv 12:12. μείζων ἀγάπη greater love J 15:13. λύπη profound (Jon 4:1; 1 Macc 6:4, 9, 13; TestJob 7:8) Ro 9:2. σκυθρωπία AcPl Ha 7, 36. πίστις firm Mt 15:28. ἔκστασις (cp. Gen 27:33; ParJer 5:8, 12) Mk 5:42.

Louw-Nida offers this definition of μεγας:

78.2  μέγας, μεγάλη, μέγα ; μεγάλως ; μέγεθος, ους n: the upper range of a scale of extent, with the possible implication of importance in relevant contexts - 'great, greatly, greatness, to a great degree, intense, terrible.' μέγας: δυνάμει μεγάλῃ 'with great power' Ac 4.33; καῦμα μέγα 'great heat' or 'intense heat' Re 16.9. μεγάλως: ἐχάρην δὲ ἐν κυρίῳ μεγάλως 'I rejoice in the Lord greatly' Php 4.10. In a number of languages the expression of intense degree associated with some activity or state is expressed by means of a verb, not an adverb, so that one may render Php 4.10 literally as 'I am-intense joyous in the Lord,' in which the form 'am-intense' is an attempt to represent a verb expression in such a language. μέγεθος: τὸ ὑπερβάλλον μέγεθος τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ 'his exceedingly great power' Eph 1.19. In Eph 1.19 there are two expressions of degree, ὑπερβάλλον (treated in 78.33) and μέγεθος, which, though syntactically the head of the phrase, is semantically an expression of degree with δύναμις 'power' (76.1).

One could go on, but it is clear that (1) Dave simply copied and pasted from a random Website without checking the context of Joseph Smith’s words; (2) the apostle Paul, if Dave were to be consistent, would have to be condemned, too, and (3) John 14:12 is a definitive refutation of his “argument” against Joseph Smith.

Dave titled his email to me "You are laughable." He should have renamed it "You will laugh" or "My research skills are laughable" if he were more honest, though I do thank him for giving me another opportunity to refute him and a long-standing argument that is often used against the Church and the Prophet Joseph Smith.

Support Scriptural Mormonism