Scriptural Mormonism: Refuting Ron Den Boer

Ron Den Boer is an Evangelical Protestant and long-standing anti-Mormon commentator (some would [correctly]) say troll both on facebook and other online venues. He has written a lot about the nature and number of God in the Bible and Latter-day Saint theology, though it always lack substance and exegetical merit. For instance, Ron made the following comment (with accompanying image) on my friend, James Stutz's blog, Lehi's Library:

“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods,” (Teachings of Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 370)

The Godhead consists of the three distinct personages and three gods.. The Father Son and Holy Spirit. The Father and Son have bodies of flesh and bones, while the Holy Spirit is a personage of spirit. Robert Millet A Different Jesus page 198

The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. “That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man,” (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35).

Mark 12:28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: ”

This post will be a full response to both Boer's comment and infographic.

1. The Plurality of the Gods in the Bible

The Bible affirms the ontological existence of plural gods. Firstly, do note that 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 sceptre 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)].

That there is a "plurality of Gods" can be seen in a variety of texts, such as Deut 32:7-9 from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which places Yawheh as one of the Gods to whom jurisdiction of a nation is given and even in the book of Genesis (20:13), where elohim is coupled with a verb in the plural, meaning plural gods (elohim is irregular in Hebrew; it has a plural ending, but when coupled with a verb in the single person, it means "One G/god"; however, when coupled with a verb in the plural [as in Psa 82:6] means [plural] G/gods).

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 wants 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.

Another key text is that of 2 Kgs 3:27:

Then he [Mesha] took his firstborn son who was to succeed him, and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And great wrath came upon Israel, so they withdrew from him and returned to their own land. (NRSV)

Commenting on this passage, one LDS scholar wrote:

We know from epigraphic and archaeological evidence that each nation state had its own god. For example, Milcom was the god of Ammon, Chemosh was the god of Moab, Qos was the god of Edom and Yahweh was the god of Israel. Indeed, according to 2 Kings 3:26-27, the king of Moab was motivated by the wrath of Chemosh to turn against Israel by sacrificing his son to Chemosh. t this point, Israel's success against Moab faltered and Israel was defeated. This text actually grants power to a foreign god to inspire humans and change the course of history for God's chosen people. It is difficult to see the writer(s) of this passage as believing that Chemosh was not real, for what isn't real cannot have such causal effects in the history of the world. The Ugaritic background of this concept seems evident, for El fathered seventy sons and thereby established the number of the sons of El or sons of God. (Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, vol. 3: Of God and Gods [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008], 51-52)

With respect to Deut 32:7-9, the NRSV (1989) 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 Mastoretic Text (MT) underlying the KJV OT reads "sons of Adam/Man," while the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest text of the book of Deuteronomy, has the reading "sons of god" (the Hebrew beni-elim) or, as Ancient Near Eastern scholars understand the term, "gods."

In the second edition of The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford University Press, 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.

Other texts could be discussed, such as 1 Cor 8:4-6, which sums up the LDS perspective rather well--there is, to us, One God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ (cf. Deut 6:4; Eph 4:5-6), but such does not preclude other beings who can correctly be called "god" having true existence and being in the midst of God--in fact, such is required by the biblical data when one takes a pan-canonical approach to theology and the Bible (just as one example, take Psa 29:1 "A psalm of David. Ascribe to the Lord, o divine beings [Heb: בְּנֵ֣י אֵלִ֑ים beni-elim], ascribe to the Lord glory and strength" [1985 Tanakh, Jewish Publications Society]).Both the Latter-day Saint and biblical understanding of this issue can be best summed up in the as "kingship monotheism":

Kingship MonotheismThere 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).

Also, 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 = b, there cannot be fewer B's than A's

D. Conclusion: There are at least three Gods.

On Psa 82:6, perhaps one of the most popular texts Latter-day Saints cite in favour of this doctrine, consider the following comments from three Evangelical Protestant scholars in a recent commentary:

Psalm 82: King of the Gods Psalm 82 places the modern reader in a very unfamiliar world. Modern thinkers hold to a monotheistic theology, meaning there is only one god and the gods of others simply do not exist. Ancient Israel did not have the same definition of monotheism. Indeed, for them not only did other gods exist, but these gods were active in the world. This psalm gives us a window on the assembly of the gods, a place where the gods are gathered to make decisions about the world. This council is part of the greater ancient Near Eastern mythology and would be a familiar image to ancient Israelites. A multitude of texts demonstrate this belief, e.g. Exod. 20:3-6; Deut. 4:15-20; josh. 24:14-15. In addition, many prophetic texts extol the people to love God alone and not go after other gods, e.g., Jer. 8:19; Hos. 11:2. In later texts, the theology seems to move more toward an exclusive monotheism; see. Isa. 41:21-24 . . . Verses 6-7 place the gods on equal footing with the humans. They have lost their immortality, hence their god status. This ability for the Go of Israel to demote the others speaks of the power of the king of the council. The king alone can control all of the other gods. This divine trial also demonstrates the fairness of Israel’s god. This god is not capricious, but sentences the other gods for their refusal to act in ways that reflect the values of God’s kingdom . . . [Psalm 89:5-8] set the state in the heavenly council. In vv.5 and 8, God is praised by the heavens for God’s faithfulness, and this certainly continues the theme of vv.1-4 while also broadening God’s faithfulness to the whole world. The questions in v.6 are rhetorical, just as in Isa. 40:18 and Pss. 18:31 and 77:13, followed by the declaration of God’s clear supremacy among the gods (v.7). God is not only the God of Israel but is the chief god of the council, and all others bow before the Lord. [2] See 1 Kgs. 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; Zech. 1:7-17. See Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, pp. 177-90. The Gilgamesh Epic is a story that concerns Gilgamesh’s quest for immortality that will make him a god, indicating the importance of immortality in ancient myth. (Nancy Declaissé-Walford, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth Laneel Tanner, The Book of Psalms [New International Old Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2014], 641, 642, 680).

One could go on and on, but the evidence from sound biblical scholarship and exegesis supports Joseph Smith's teachings on a plurality of Gods.

2. Heb 3:1 and Jesus as the Christian "Apostle"

In his infographic, one of the titles Den Boer (correctly) ascribes to Jesus is that of "Apostle." However, the theological ramifications of this refutes, not supports, Den Boer's Trinitarian theology.

The title is used of Jesus in Heb 3:1 which reads thusly:

Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus.

The Greek term translated as "apostle" is αποστολος, referring to a messenger or an emissary. It is the noun form of the verb αποστελλω, "to send out." The Hebrew equivalents of this noun and verb would be שׁליח and שׁלח, respectively. The use of this term for Jesus vis-a-vis His relationship with the Father is further biblical evidence for His subordination to the Father.

In the Bible, the one who sends is greater than the one who is sent/apostle. For instance, note the description of John the Baptist:

There was a man sent (αποστελλω) from God, whose name was John. (John 1:6)

Obviously, John the Baptist is subordinate to God.

This verb is used of the relationship between the Father and the Son as well as the relationship between the Son and the apostles:

For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I come out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send (αποστελλω) me. (John 17:8)

As (καθος) thou hast sent (αποστελλω) me into the world, even so have I also sent (αποστελλω) them into the world. (John 17:18)

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent (αποστελλω) me . . . I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent (αποστελλω )me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me . . . O righteous father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent (αποστελλω )me. (John 17:21, 23, 25).

Such usage underscores (1) the subordination of the apostles to Jesus and, by extension, (2) the subordination of Jesus to the Father. Such is shown, for instance, in the usage of the conjunction καθος in John 17:18 (quoted above) which means “just as,” showing the reciprocal relationship between the Father and the Son with the Son and the apostles.

3. Mark 12:28-29 and Deut 6:4

The appeal to Mark 12:28-29 is another argument that refutes, not supports, Den Boer's Trinitarian theology.

Firstly, with respect to Deut 6:4, it is not a Trinitarian creed. The passage reads as follows:

‎ שְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה׀ אֶחָֽד

Hear, o Israel: Yahweh is our God; Yahweh alone (my translation)

The Shema is often cited as evidence of strict monotheism. However, most modern biblical scholars agree that the Shema is not about the “number” of God, but instead, is about how Yahweh is the only God with whom Israel is to have a covenantal relationship with. A parallel would be Deut 5:7, a rendition of the Decalogue:

Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. (cf. Exo 20:3 [exegeted here])

According to biblical scholars such as Michael Coogan, this commandment and the Shema implicitly recognises the ontological existence of other gods (cf. Gen 20:13). As in a marriage, one of the primary analogues for the covenant, Israel was to be faithful, like a wife to her husband. When the prophets condemn the Israelites for having worshipped other gods in violation of this commandment, the metaphors of marital and political fidelity are often invoked, sometimes graphically (e.g., Ezek 16:23-24; 23:2-12; Jer 2:23-25; 3:1-10). Yahweh is a jealous husband (e.g., Exo 34:14) and the worship of other gods, or making alliances with foreign powers, provokes his rage (Michael D. Coogan, The Old Testament: A historical and literary introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures [New York: Oxford University press, 2006], 176, 116).

Additionally, there has been a lot of linguistic nonsense about the Hebrew numeral אֶחָד which simply means one (not “plural one” or some other nonsense one finds among some Trinitarians). See my blog post on Gen 2:24 addressing this pathetic argument, or the work of Anthony F. Buzzard, who has done a lot of great work on this particular issue (while I disagree with Buzzard’s Socinian Christology, he shows the Trinitarian arguments are utter nonsense).

For those wishing to delve further into the issue of "monotheism" in the book of Deuteronomy, I would highly recommend Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of "Monotheism" (2d ed.: Mohr Siebeck, 2012).

There is a danger, however, of Trinitarians “absolutizing” Deut 6:4 as some are wont to do, not the least is that Mark 12:28f and its parallels refute any Trinitarian reading of the Shema. In this incident with a Jewish scribe, we read the following:

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he [Jesus] had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is One Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is one other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is one other but he. And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. (Mark 12:28-34)

In the above pericope, Jesus agrees with a Jew about the Shema. What is interesting is that the Jews were never Trinitarians, in spite of a lot of fudging of biblical grammar by the likes of Natan Yoel (The Jewish Trinity) and other eisegesis-laden texts. This is an undisputed fact of history and scholarship. Furthermore, singular personal pronouns are used to describe God. Furthermore, in the proceeding text, Jesus discusses Psa 110:1 (109:1, LXX), where Yahweh speaks to “my Lord, and Christ identifies Himself as the second Lord, not the first:

And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly. And he said unto them in his doctrines, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces. (Mark 12:35-38; cf. Acts 2:34; Heb 1:13)

Taking the absolutist hermeneutic of many Trinitarian apologists, one must conclude that the Shema is strictly uni-personal, not Tri-personal, in scope. Of course, both theologies are undermined by other factors, not the least is that the ontological existence of plural gods in the midst of the Most High are part-and-parcel of biblical theology, even in the book of Deuteronomy itself (e.g., the earliest textual reading of Deut 32:7-9 [discussed abbove] or the fact that even modern conservative Protestant commentators are acknowledging the elohim of Psa 82 and 89 to be [true] gods).

4. "One God" texts in the Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Mormon

What about Alma 11 and other texts in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants that speak of "one God"? Firstly, we have to present what Latter-day Saint theology teaches, something Den Boer 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, even 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)

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.

Now, with respect to the relevant texts, let us focus on Alma 11:44:

Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil. (Alma 11:44)

Alma 11 has been discussed before in this article, responding to the arguments of Desmond Ferguson (formerly of Irish Church Missions), showing that Alma 11 is not in conflict with the Book of Abraham and modern Latter-day Saint theology vis-á-vis the “number” of God.

In this verse, as with previous texts in this chapter, the person of God (not just the Father [which is anti-Trinitarian itself] and the Son are numerically distinct from one another (e.g., vv.32-35). Furthermore, the polysemic nature of the term “God” which is found in biblical and other canonical texts is stressed here, as “God” is predicated upon the person of the Father, and is then used to denote the “oneness” of the persons of the Father, Son, and Spirit (here, having the meaning similar to “Godhead”; cf. the concept of perichoresis). Instead of being a chapter in the Book of Mormon that is said to be in conflict with modern LDS theology, Alma 11 is consistent with such.

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 and similar passages in the Bible and the Book of Moron are clearly non-Trinitarian in theology (in fact, very much anti-Trinitarian). 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.

Returning to Alma 11, critics are also guilty of ignoring the Mesoamerican background to the Book of Mormon and how such comments such as those in Alma 11:28-29 is not against the ontological existence of beings that can be called “G/gods” per se but a denial of Mesoamerican religious syncretism. As LDS Mesoamericanist Brant Gardner noted:

Bridging the Nature of God

Syncretizing Nephite and Mesoamerican religions had to deal with concepts of deity. On this most fundamental point, modern monotheists would see tremendous differences with the Mesoamerican polytheists, but there were sufficient perceived similarities with the Mesoamerican polytheists, but there were sufficient perceived similarities with the Nephite explanation of Deity could accommodate, or be accommodated to, Mesoamerican ideas about the nature of the divine.

Although the Nephites cannot be equated with the Maya, Maya culture was already widespread in Mesoamerica and in the Preclassic period (400 B.C.-A.D. 250) and appears to have exerted a great influence on surrounding cultures (Francisco Estrada Belli, The First Maya Civilization, 61-63). We have the best data for this culture, thanks to the preponderance of carved stone monuments and ceramic vessels painted with historical and mythological scenes and texts that have been preserved archaeologically. As plausibly influential neighbors of the Nephites, the Maya exemplify the kind of religious ideas to which some Nephites accommodated. Though certainly not homogenous, Maya beliefs and practices bear fundamental similarities to other Mesoamerican cultures and therefore exemplify the points of congruence along with our proposed syncretism occurred (Larks Kirkhusmo Pharo, “The Concept of ‘Religion’ in Mesoamerican Languages,” 28-70).

Maya scholars use god and deity interchangeably in their scholarly literature. The problem with the terminology is that our modern ideas of “god” and “deity” may not replicate the Maya notion of “supernatural sentient beings that appear in sacred narrative” (Karl Taube, The Major Gods of Ancient Yucatan, 8). Maya scholars Stephen Houston and David Stuart lament a scholarly ethnocentrism that has hindered understanding of Classic Period Maya deities. They argue that the Western conception of gods as perfect, immortal, and discrete beings is not applicable to the Mesoamerican pantheon (Stephen D. Houston and David Stuart, “Of Gods, Glyphs, and Kings: Divinity and Rulership among the Classic Maya,” 290). Gabrielle Vail’s assessment of the Preclassic Maya (A.D. 900-1521) representations of gods found in their bark-paper books can usefully be applied to the earlier Classic depictions of gods found on ceramics and monuments: “The picture that emerges is one of a series of deity complexes or clusters, composed of a small number of underlying divinities, each having various aspects, or manifestations” (Gabrielle Vail, “Pre-Hispanic Maya Religion,” 123). Vail argues that in a “deity complex,” a variety of distinctive gods could be lumped together into a single category, predicated on a core cluster of bodily features or costume elements. Conversely, a single god could be represented with a variety of differing characteristics or manifestations. Their names, attributes, and domains of influence were fluid, yet they retained their individual identity. Each of the elaborations that a modern reader might see as a different deity was actually considered to be merely an elaboration of the complex essence of one particular deity.

Although not precisely the same concept, Nephite religion understood a proliferation of “names” for the Messiah. For example, Isaiah declares that “his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6; 2 Ne. 19:6). Each of these names proclaims a different quality, yet all apply to the same God. The Maya deity complexes similarly expanded the qualities of the underlying deity, albeit with a more complete elaboration than just a name.

An example from the modern Ch’orti’, a designation for a Maya people and language, demonstrates how this Mesoamerican deity complex expands the names and manifestations of an underlying deity according to different conditions. One particular god manifests itself as a solar being during the dry season but transforms into a maize spirit during the rainy season (Rafael Girard, People of the Chan, 350). Even as a solar deity, it has multiple manifestations throughout the course of a single day that also demonstrate syncretism with Christian ideals: “They say that the sun has not just one name. The one which is best known by people continues to be Jesus Christ. They say that when it is just getting light its name is Child Redeemer of the World. One name is San Gregorio the Illuminator. One name is San Antonio of Judgment. One name is Child Guardian. One is Child Refuge. One is Child San Pascual. One is Child Succor. One is Child Creator. They say that during at each hour, one of these is its name” (John G. Fought, Chorti (Maya) Texts, 485. Among the Ch’orti, San Antonio is the fire god, San Gregorio emits beams of light, and San Pascual is Venus as morning star).

Although it is foreign to the way we understand our Christian tradition, a people who lived in the context of a world that saw manifestations of the divine in deity complexes might easily reenvision the Nephite God (with multiple names) as a deity complex, being composed of distinctive manifestations in different circumstances. For example, God the Father and Christ the Son are considered “one Eternal God” (Alma 11:44). From a syncretic perspective, the Book of Mormon can be read as teaching that each deity had his own identity and at times was described by different manifestations. When the text declares, “Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son” (Ether 3:14), the syncretist might easily interpret it as a deity complex. Abinadi’s explanation in Mosiah 15 of how Christ is both the Father and the Son could also be read as an example of multiple manifestations of a single deity:

And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and the Son—

And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people . . .

Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father. (Mosiah 15:2-5, 7)

Once a Nephite apostate accommodated the idea of a deity complex, that concept could easily be read into the scriptural tradition, and the Nephite God of many names could be reinterpreted in much more fluid Mesoamerican terms. Such a syncretic perspective would reread descriptions of God as differing manifestations, such as a creator deity (Jacob 2:5), a destroyer (3 Ne. 9), a rain god (Ether 9:35), a god of agricultural fertility (Alma 34:24), a solar deity (1 Ne. 1:9; Hel. 14:4, 20), a fire god (1 Ne. 1:6; Hel. 13:13), a king (Mosiah 2:19), a god of medicine (Alma 46:40), a shepherd (Alma 5:38), a lamb (1 Ne. 14), and even a rock (Hel. 5:12). Clearly, some of these manifestations are metaphorical in their appropriate context, but the ancient Maya similarly used rich metaphorical language, and they often used visual metaphors in their art. In an apostate/syncretic mind-set, the metaphor shifted to express a different underlying meaning (Kerry M. Hull, Verbal Art and Performance in Ch’orti’ and Maya Hieroglyphic Writing, 337). (Brant A. Gardner, Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History [Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2015], 263-65)

Conclusion

While much more could be said, it is clear that Ron Den Boer has no exegetical abilities; instead, he seems to think that a poorly argued and poorly researched "hit and run" on various online venues and/or an equally lousily researched infographic is a substitute for intellectual integrity and exegetical ability. That speaks volumes of him and his abilities. Hopefully, honest readers, LDS and non-LDS alike, will see that his arguments lack any merit. Indeed, contra his note on the infographic, it is Evangelical Protestats like himself whose theology is antithetical to the words of Jesus Christ, not Latter-day Saints; indeed, Latter-day Saints have the true, biblical Jesus. Hopefully, the anti-Mormons of the world, including Den Boer, will repent and bow the knee to Him before it is too late (cf. Rev 21:8).

Scriptural Mormonism

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Refuting Ron Den Boer

Blog Archive

About Me

Search This Blog