Back in September of this year, I wrote a review of Jeff Durbin's popular video, "The Gospel for Mormons":
Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism" (cf. my response to Durbin on the nature of the atonement and issues relating to the Priesthood, Refuting Jeff Durbin on Mormonism and the Atonement)
This week, he teamed up with James R. White of Alpha and Omega Ministries (author of books such as Letters to a Mormon Elder [see my critique of White's eisegesis-driven approach to Heb 10:29 here) to critique my response of Durbin's video. Apologia Radio has just released a 5-minute excerpt thereof which one can find here.
"Utterly pathetic" is the most polite way of summing up what White and Durbin said in this portion, and one hopes that they actually engaged in exegesis and interacted with the facts than simply poisoning the well (e.g., White claiming I am "almost deceptive" and trying to portray me as a godless liberal). Even allowing for the sake of argument that scholars would strongly disagree with my theology of God does not mean that one can dismiss what they say, as Durbin wants--Mormonism could be false and yet I can guarantee not a single of those texts supports the concept that the Old Testament (and even New Testament) authors held to the (Latin/Creedal) Trinitarian concept of God. Hopefully the full review will not assume the Trinity but will engage in meaningful exegesis of the relevant texts and issues than simply question-begging and bald assertions.
With respect to his (weak) critique of higher criticism, one should know that he tried pulling the same arguments against Daniel McClellan, another Latter-day Saint, and got thoroughly refuted; one can access the entire exchange here, which shows just how out of touch White is.
With respect to the Jehovah being Jesus and Elohim being God the Father, White is the one who is deceptive (not just "almost" deceptive). Firstly, there are numerous scholars who would agree with Yahweh and El being two separate deities in both ancient Israel and in the Hebrew Bible itself. One should pursue the works of Jeremy Day, Mark S. Smith, and others. Daniel McClellan has a useful article, Decoupling YHWH and El. Again, White is way out in left field on this issue.
Moreover, his understanding of Latter-day Saint theology on this matter is weak at best. For someone who has been studying "Mormonism" since the early 1980s, he has no excuse. As I wrote in response to Bobby Gilpin, another Reformed Baptist, in my article on Christology, Latter-day Saints have Chosen the True, Biblical Jesus:
As I said earlier, one does hope that the full review, when posted, will engage more substantially with the relevant texts.
Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism" (cf. my response to Durbin on the nature of the atonement and issues relating to the Priesthood, Refuting Jeff Durbin on Mormonism and the Atonement)
This week, he teamed up with James R. White of Alpha and Omega Ministries (author of books such as Letters to a Mormon Elder [see my critique of White's eisegesis-driven approach to Heb 10:29 here) to critique my response of Durbin's video. Apologia Radio has just released a 5-minute excerpt thereof which one can find here.
"Utterly pathetic" is the most polite way of summing up what White and Durbin said in this portion, and one hopes that they actually engaged in exegesis and interacted with the facts than simply poisoning the well (e.g., White claiming I am "almost deceptive" and trying to portray me as a godless liberal). Even allowing for the sake of argument that scholars would strongly disagree with my theology of God does not mean that one can dismiss what they say, as Durbin wants--Mormonism could be false and yet I can guarantee not a single of those texts supports the concept that the Old Testament (and even New Testament) authors held to the (Latin/Creedal) Trinitarian concept of God. Hopefully the full review will not assume the Trinity but will engage in meaningful exegesis of the relevant texts and issues than simply question-begging and bald assertions.
With respect to his (weak) critique of higher criticism, one should know that he tried pulling the same arguments against Daniel McClellan, another Latter-day Saint, and got thoroughly refuted; one can access the entire exchange here, which shows just how out of touch White is.
With respect to the Jehovah being Jesus and Elohim being God the Father, White is the one who is deceptive (not just "almost" deceptive). Firstly, there are numerous scholars who would agree with Yahweh and El being two separate deities in both ancient Israel and in the Hebrew Bible itself. One should pursue the works of Jeremy Day, Mark S. Smith, and others. Daniel McClellan has a useful article, Decoupling YHWH and El. Again, White is way out in left field on this issue.
Moreover, his understanding of Latter-day Saint theology on this matter is weak at best. For someone who has been studying "Mormonism" since the early 1980s, he has no excuse. As I wrote in response to Bobby Gilpin, another Reformed Baptist, in my article on Christology, Latter-day Saints have Chosen the True, Biblical Jesus:
Jehovah and Elohim in LDS Discourse
It is true that in modern LDS discourse, “Jehovah” is interchangeable with Jesus while “Elohim” is used of the Father. However, this has not always been the case. From the time of Joseph Smith onwards, there was a great level of fluidity in the use of these terms. For instance, in D&C 109:34, 68, the Father is called “Jehovah” (cf. v. 29, 47), but in D&C 110:3-4, “Jehovah” is predicated of Jesus Christ. Interestingly, the name of the Father, as revealed in the Doctrine and Covenants, is not Elohim, a Hebrew generic noun (D&C 78:20; 95:17).
In his diary for 23 August 1842, Joseph Smith used Elohim ("Eloheem"):
O, thou who seeeth, and knoweth the hearts of all men, thou eternal omnipotent, omnicient, and omnipresent Jehovah, God, thou Eloheem, that sitteth, as saith the psalmist, enthroned in heaven, look down upon thy servant Joseph, at this time, and let faith on the name of thy Son Jesus Christ, to a greater degree than thy servant ever yet has enjoyed, be conferred upon him, even the faith of Elijah. And let the Lamp of eternal life, be lit up in his heart, never to be taken away, and the words of eternal life, be poured upon the soul of thy servant, that he may know thy will, thy statutes, and thy commandments, and thy judgments to do them. As the dews upon Mount Hermon, may the distillations of thy divine grace, glory and honor in the plenitude of thy mercy, and power and goodness be poured down upon the head of thy servant.
Among other early LDS, there was a practice of predicating Lord/Jehovah on the person of the Father, such as the following:
The Lord (Jehovah,) hath spoken through Isa. (42, 1) saying. behold my servant, whom I uphold, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth; evidently referring to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God chosen or elected by the Father, (1 Peter i, 20, who verily was fore ordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, who by him do believe in God,) to serve him in the redemption of the world, to be a covenant of the people, (Isa, xlii, 6) for a light of the Gentiles, and glory of his people Israel; having ordained forgiveness of sins might be preached (Acts xiii, 38) unto all who would be obedient unto his gospel (Mark xvi, 16, 17) (Times and Seasons, vol. 2, no. 21, p. 524).
It is not the purpose of this response to delve into this issue, so readers wishing to delve further into this, see the following link and its corresponding bibliography:
The “Jehovah = Jesus; Elohim = the Father” approach in LDS terminology is a modern convention, often to avoid confusion, especially as there are some “Yahweh” texts where only the person of the Father is in view (e.g., Psa 110:1; Isa 52:13), though in some cases, they are predicated of Jesus (for a full discussion, see, as one example, David B Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul's Christology [Mohr Siebeck, 1992]).
One should note the following paragraph from the 1916 First Presidency statement on the relationship between the Father and the Son (entitled, “The Father and the Son”):
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.
As I said earlier, one does hope that the full review, when posted, will engage more substantially with the relevant texts.