Response to Michael Flournoy

Former Latter-day Saint, Michael Flournoy, has written a blog post entitled,

21 Reasons to Leave the Mormon Church Even if it is True. It is a series of rather pathetic arguments against the Church forwarded by Flournoy to justify to himself his abandonment of the Restored Gospel in favour of some form of Evangelical Protestantism. For previous interactions with Flournoy, see:

Trading one's inheritance for a bowl of pottage/damnable false gospel

Christ's baptism is NOT imputed to the believer

Here are responses to some of his arguments:

4) Praise to the Man

The very fact that they have a hymn praising Joseph Smith (that they sing on a semi-regular basis) is reason to leave. Especially when you consider that God (allegedly) said in Doctrine and Covenants 25:12 that the song of the righteous is a prayer to Him. Thus, the opening hymn is actually a prayer, and when we sing about Joseph Smith, the opportunity to pray to God is sacrificed.

Firstly, Praise to the Man is a hymn about Joseph Smith; it is not a hymn, let alone a prayer to. Joseph Smith. Furthermore, the Bible provides ample support for mortals receiving praise, honour, glory, and even prayers.

In Zech 3:20, we read the following:

At that time will I bring you again, even in the time that I gather you; for I will make you a name and a praise among all the people of the earth; when I turn back your captivity before your eyes saith the Lord.

In this verse, the people are given a promise that they will inherit a great “name” and be praised among the people of the earth. This should give some pause to those who argue that the hymn “Praise to the Man” is, ultimately, an act of idolatry, as it is about Joseph Smith and not deity (or, at the very least, is a hymn that detracts emphasis on Jesus and putting an allegedly undue emphasis on the Prophet Joseph Smith, as per Bobby’s complaint in the above-quoted paragraph).

That the Bible knows of, and approves of, praise (in some limited sense) being given to mortals and non-deity is seen throughout its pages, such as the use of the Hebrew verb חוה  or the Greek verb προσκυνεω in the LXX of mortals (often translated as “worship”/”bow down [to]”). A potent example would be 1 Chron 29:20 and King Solomon being the recipient thereof (emphasis added):

And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the Lord your God. And all the congregation blessed the Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads and worshipped the Lord, and the king.

Within a context of temple sacrifice and worship, the Israelites are commanded by David to “bow down” and “worship” both Yahweh and the king--the Hebrew construction of the sentence italicised above ( וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ לַיהוָה וְלַמֶּלֶך) does not allow for a distinction between the veneration Yahweh receives and what is given to the king from the assembly as does the LXX rendition (καὶ κάμψαντες τὰ γόνατα προσεκύνησαν τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ τῷ βασιλεῖ).

There are many other instances of this, but let us focus on Isa 45:14 where God promises that the Gentile nations will offer supplication/prayer to Israel:

Thus saith the Lord, The labour of Egypt, and the merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee and they shall be thine; they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, and they shall make supplication unto thee, saying Surely God is in thee, and there is none else, there is no God.

Apart from the Masoretic Text and LXX using חוה and προσκυνεω, respectively in this verse, the LXX also uses the term προσευχομαι, which means “to pray to.” The Latter-day Saint hymn, “Praise to the Man” pales in comparison to such, as prayer is never given to Joseph Smith (in fact, I am pretty sure one would be excommunicated for such if such were given to Joseph Smith(!)

Here is a listing (not exhaustive) of some other verses that are rather a propos for this discussion where mortals or objects are the recipients of praise, not deity:

Gen 49:8 Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise (חוה/προσκυνεω): thy hand  shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father's children shall bow down
before thee. 

Deut 26:19 And to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in  praise, and in name, and in honour; and that thou mayest be an holy people unto the LORD thy God, as he hath spoken. 

Psa 49:18 Though while he lived he blessed his soul: and men will praise thee, when thou doest well to thyself. 

Psa 56:4 In God I will praise his word, in God I have put my trust; I will
not fear what flesh can do unto me. 

Psa 56:10 In God will I praise his word: in the LORD will I praise his word. 

Prov 27:2 Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips. 

Prov 31:28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also,
and he praiseth her. 

Prov 31:30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that
feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. 

Prov 31:31 Give her of the fruit of her hands, and let her own works praise her in the gates. 

Eccl 4:2 Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive. 

Song 6:9 My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her
mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her.  The daughters saw her,  and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her. 

Isa 62:7 And give him no rest, till he establish, and till he make 

Jerusalem a praise in the earth. 

Jer 13:11 For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I
caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of
Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a
name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear. 

Jer 33:9 And it shall be to me a name of joy, a praise and an honour before all the nations of the earth, which shall hear all the good that I do unto them: and they shall fear and tremble for all the goodness and for all the prosperity that I procure unto it. 

Note also one of the glorious promises to those who endure in Rev 3:9, 21 (this is Christ Himself speaking through John):

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee . . . To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

In 3:21, believers are promised to sit down on Christ’s throne, which is the Father's very own throne! Interestingly, Christ sitting down on the throne of the Father is cited as prima facie evidence of his being numerically identical to the “one God” (see the works of Richard Bauckham on “divine identity” on this issue), and yet, believers are promised the very same thing! This is in agreement with John 17:22 in that we will all share the same glory and be one with Christ and God just as they are one. Sitting in it does not indicate, contra Robert M. Bowman, Richard Bauckham, et al, ontological identification with God (cf. Testament of Job 32:2-9, where Job is promised to sit on God’s throne, something that is common in the literature of Second Temple Judaism and other works within the Jewish pseudepigrapha and elsewhere).

As for Rev 3:9, believers are promised that they will be the future recipients of προσκυνέω. While some may try to downplay the significance of this term, in all other instances where it is used in the book of Revelation it denotes religious worship (Rev 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 9:20; 11:1, 16; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:7, 9, 11; 15:4; 16:2; 19:4, 10, 20; 20:4; 22:8, 9). Only by engaging in special pleading and question begging can one claim it does not carry religious significance in Rev 3:9 (cf. my discussion on whether Jesus receives λατρευω in the New Testament).

To add to the discussion, here is the exegesis provided by New Testament scholar, Jürgen Roloff, on these important verses:

[3:9] With the same words that are in 2:9, the claim of the Jews to be the assembly (synagōgē) of God and the people of God's is rejected as false. Because they rejected Jesus as bringer of God's salvation, in truth they subordinated themselves to the dominion of God's adversary. Israel's heritage and claim are completely transferred to the Christian community. To it, therefore, also belongs the promise, originally made to Israel, that at the end time of the Gentiles will enter the city of God and subjugate themselves to the people of God (Isa. 60:14 and elsewhere). Indeed, among those who then come will be the unbelieving Jews, who will realize that Jesus loved them and that means he chose them; (cf. Isa. 42:1) and made them into the people of God. When mention is made of "bowing down" before the feet of the church, this assumes full participation of the church in the kingdom of Christ and sitting with him on his throne (v. 21) . . . [3:21] The final word about overcoming in the series of letters has particular importance. It summarizes in conclusion the central promise of salvation, which is the promises heretofore was sounded several times with variations and modifications, by using another Synoptic expression of Jesus (Luke 22:30b; Matt 19:28 [Q?]: to those who overcome is promised here participation in Jesus' heavenly kingdom. Thus, just as Jesus sits on his throne (cf. 5:6) beside God as equal ruler on the basis of his having overcome and thereby shares his dominion, so also will those who have overcome for his sake receive a place in his messianic rule (cf. 20:6) with unlimited communion, and even equality, with him. (Jürgen Roloff, Revelation [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993], 61, 65-66)

Interestingly, Solomon in 1 Chron 29, the very same chapter he received the same worship as Yahweh, he also sit on the throne of Yahweh. On the topic of people other than Yahweh sitting on the throne of Yahweh, Patrick Navas (author of Divine Truth or Human Tradition? A Reconsideration of the Roman Catholic-Protestant Doctrine of the Trinity in light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures) wrote the following which serves as another refutation of the “divine identity” argument based Jesus sitting on the throne of Yahweh:

Another text that helps to underscore the fallaciousness of Wallace’s reasoning is found in 1 Chronicles 29:[23] which says:

“Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Jehovah as king in place of David his father. And he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him.”

Here Solomon is portrayed as one who “sat on the throne of Jehovah as king.” Does this text imply that Solomon therefore “shares all the attributes of Jehovah,” or that Solomon is ontologically “Jehovah,” or that he is a member of the “Godhead”? No. It simply means that Solomon occupied a position of supreme/royal authority over the people of Israel as Jehovah’s agent or representative. To sit on Jehovah’s throne does not make one ontologically Jehovah (or one who has all of Jehovah’s attributes as Wallace wrongly implies), but makes one an individual whom Jehovah has invested with kingly authority as his appointed and ruling representative. Solomon sat down on Jehovah’s earthly throne in Jerusalem. Following his resurrection, the supremely exalted Messiah, Jesus, sat down “at the right hand of the majesty on high”—in heaven itself, with all things in subjection to him, with the obvious exception of God himself (Heb. 1:3; 1 Cor. 15:27). (Patrick Navas, Response to Daniel Wallace)

This is yet another area where Latter-day Saint theology and practice is more commensurate with “biblical Christianity” and not the theologies of our Evangelical opponents.

For more, see Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology

  

9) The Book of Morm..zzzzz

The Boring of Mundane, oops… The Book of Mormon is the most uninspiring piece of literature on the planet. I’m sorry to say it, but it’s true. There’s a reason most members can’t make it past 2 Nephi. But sadly, Mormons have to pretend that they like it because it just so happens to be the keystone of their religion.

Apart from how subjective such an "argument" is, does Flournoy really expect us to believe that everything in the Bible is an exciting read such as 1 Chron 1-8? I also know the joke about Latter-day Saints not being able to make it past 2 Nephi, but most LDS I know have read the Book of Mormon cover-to-cover a number of times, myself included (60+ times since 2002). Furthermore, I find the text to me much more interesting and exciting to read than Flournoy does.

To see how empty Flournoy's argument is about the literary quality of the Book of Mormon, see the following scholarly work published by a non-LDS publisher:

Grant Hardy, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide (Oxford, 2010) 

14) Too Many Children

I like children, I really do. But when there are 100 of them in the pews, with no child care provided, it can turn into quite the choir of loud cries and babbling. Mormons believe they have a duty to bring spirit children into righteous homes, and it can make church seem like a giant day care. Not only that but if you don’t have enough kids, it’s one of those things you could end up judged for.

Speaking to humanity, God said the following:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth (Gen 1:28)

Furthermore, in the Psalter, we read:

Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate. (Psa 127:5)

The Church's teachings on the importance of children is, unlike Flournoy's new-found Evangelical Protestant faith, biblical. 

20) The Word of Wisdom

The Word of Wisdom, according to Doctrine & Covenants 89:2 is not even a commandment, yet the LDS Church has made it a requirement for entering the temple, and therefore to enter heaven. However, Jesus said in Matthew 15:11 that what comes out of a man defiles him, not what goes in. Leaving Mormonism means the freedom to drink tea, caffeine, even a beer once in a while.

 With respect to the modern LDS Church elevating the Word of Wisdom to a commandment, being the true Church, it actually has that ability and prerogative. We see something similar at the Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. 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).

Furthermore, Amos 9:11-12 is silent about the cessation of circumcision, speaking only of the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David which was interpreted to mean that the influx of Gentile converts into the Church fulfilled the text (see Acts 15:16-18). The "hermeneutical lens," if you will, that helped this was not Scripture, but Peter's experiences as recorded in vv.1-11.

Acts 15 opens with the account of various men from Judea who were teaching the brethren that unless a man is circumcised according to the custom of Moses, he cannot be saved, resulting in the council being called Verse 7 tells us that there was much debate among them. Apparently, they could arrive at no firm resolution on the issue of whether a new Gentile convert had to be circumcised.

This was a difficult problem. There was no Scripture they could point to that predicted or allowed a rescinding of circumcision. In fact, since circumcision was first performed with Abraham 700 years before the Mosaic law was instituted, one might think that it had a special place in God's economy outside the Mosaic law. And to the Jews, the Torah was unchangeable. Further, there was no tradition for the apostles and elders to fall back on. The Talmud, the Mishnah, and all oral teaching never even suggested that the act of circumcision could be rescinded.

Notwithstanding, Acts 15:7 records Peter standing up and addressing the apostles and elders. Three times in this speech he invokes the name of God to back up his single authority to speak on this issue and make a decision for the whole Church. In verse 7 he says that God choose him, singularly, to give the gospel to the Gentiles. In Acts 15:10 he ridicules those who are pressing for circumcision by accusing them of affronting God and placing an undue yoke upon new believers. Peter concludes in verse 11 by declaring the doctrine of salvation - that men are saved by grace, not works of law, and only after that, does James stand up, as bishop of Jerusalem, and cite Amos 9:11-12. There is nothing in Acts 15 to support the formal sufficiency of Scripture, but a lot to support the authority of the Church in a way that is contrary to the various ecclesiologies within Protestantism.

As for Matt 15:11, the Word of Wisdom is not like the Jewish dietary laws where eating certain foods made one ritually defiled, so it is a false comparison to being with by bringing up Christ's rejection of such in the Gospels. I am unaware of any Latter-day Saint who believes that coffee makes one ritually impure like observant Jews would view one to be ritually impure if they even come into contact with something not considered Kosher.

21) Jesus

I saved the best for last even though He should be the #1 reason. Jesus was not mentioned in the article that inspired this one, and that’s probably because in Mormon culture Jesus is often left out. I’ve been through entire Sunday worships were the only time Jesus is mentioned is at the close of a prayer! I’ve even seen investigators come to church and ask, “Why doesn’t your church talk about Jesus?” The truth is Jesus deserves to be emphasized, not hidden behind covenants and ordinances!

On the topic of Christology, one should read my paper, Latter-day Saints have chosen the True, Biblical Jesus. Furthermore, as I wrote in response in my paper, Joseph Smith Worship on the Christocentric nature of the typical Sacrament Meeting each Sunday:

In the weekly religious service of Latter-day Saints, one partakes of the bread and water in remembrance of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, His resurrection, and His glorious final coming (parousia). Note the words of D&C 20:77, 79 (same as those in Moroni 4-5 in the Book of Mormon), which shows the Christo-centric (not Joseph-centric) soteriology of “Mormonism”:

O God the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen . . . O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember thee, that they may have his Spirit to be with them, Amen.

Commenting on these prayers, one of my favourite LDS theologians wrote:

These prayers of consecration are the most perfect forms of sacred literature to be found. So perfect they are that one may not add to them or take ought from them without marring them . . .  these prayers of consecration form a rallying point—raise a standard that will make for the holding together in union and fellowship the followers of the Master, beyond all other formulas known to man; and for that purpose, beyond all doubt, were they given, as well as to call up to man's consciousness the sacrifice God made for man's redemption, and man's covenant to remember and to keep God's commandments, that he might always be in union with God. (B.H. Roberts, The Truth, the Way, the Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology, p. 443)

Further proving (1) that LDS theology is Christocentric and (2) that such is not a novelty in recent years can be seen from the following paragraph of a book, What Jesus Taught by Osborne J.P. Widtsoe (Deseret Book Company, 1926), p.326, which was published for the Deseret Sunday School Union and well before the time when critics claim the Church tried to become more "ecumenical":

The stone which the builders rejected has become the Christ, the Savior of the world. He is the Keystone of our salvation, He is our Master, our Teacher, our Friend. He has restored His Gospel to us with all its blessings and privileges. Him will we follow, and His commandments will we keep; for it was He Himself who said, “I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”

Only by engaging in eisegesis, double-standards, engaging in logical fallacies, and ignorance of LDS theology, Scripture, and practice, can Bobby (and other critics) make the (false) claim that, implicitly, worship is given to Joseph Smith and/or Latter-day Saint theology is not truly centred on Christ (cf. my post, "Wilford Woodruff on the Necessity and Rationality of the Atonement")

As for the ordinances, Jesus Himself taught baptismal regeneration in John 3:3-5 (as did the apostle Peter in Acts 2:38//1 Pet 3:21 and Paul in Rom 6:1-4 and Eph 2:8-9), so Michael Flournoy should reconsider this "argument."

Now, Michael may object to the appeal to John 3:3-5 as evidence for baptismal regeneration. To quote one of his fellow co-religionists:

If an LDS person answers the question [“Have you been born again?] by saying, “I was born again when I was baptized into the LDS Church,” use the following discussion ideas to show them water baptism is now what Jesus meant when he said, “You must be born again”—read the story,

John 3:1-7 “There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into this mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, eerily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.”

The phrase, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit,” is interpreted by the LDS Church to mean you must be water baptized to be born again. But is this what Jesus meant?

In this passage, Jesus was talking about being born “again,” or being born twice. All men experience the first birth—physical birth, but if you hope to see the kingdom of God, you must also experience a second birth—spiritual birth. You must be “born again.”

In verse 5, the first birth is described as being born of water and the second birth being born of the Spirit. Jesus interpreted these two births of us in vs. 6, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” The first birth (of the flesh) takes place when a mother’s water membrane ruptures and the child is born. This is the physical/water birth.

The second birth (of the Spirit) takes place when a person is born of the Spirit into God’s family. This is what it means to be “born again.”

Jesus Christ’s explanation of the two births makes it clear that water baptism and being born again are not synonymous terms. A person is born again when he believes Jesus (John 3:14-18. 36). (Daniel G. Thompson, Witness to Mormons in Love: The Mormon Scrapbook [rev. ed.: Createspace, 2014], 61-62; emphasis in original; comment in square brackets added for clarification).

There are a number of problems with Thompson’s rather eisegetial, superficial treatment of John 3:

1.     Baptism was known among the Jews at the time of Jesus, and ritual immersions were done, often for Gentile converts to various Judaisms. For a book-length treatment, see Jonathan Lawrence, Washing in Water: Trajectories of Ritual Bathing in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (Society of Biblical Literature, 2006). The concept of immersion is part-and-parcel of the Hebrew Bible; for example, the Hebrew verb meaning “to wash” רחץ appears 74 times in 73 verses in the OT; often having the meaning of a full immersion of either a person or an object (e.g., Exo 2:5; 1 Kgs 22:38).

Another Hebrew verb,טבל appears 16 times in the OT, having the meaning of "to dip" or "to immerse," all part-and-parcel of "baptism" (e.g., Gen 37:31; Num 19:18; 2 Kgs 5:14; Job 9:31).

With respect to 2 Kgs 5:14, the LXX translatesטבל using the Greek verb meaning “to baptise” βαπτιζω that appears three other times in the LXX (Isa 21:4 in the proto-canonical texts; Judith 12:7; Sirach 34:35 in the Apocrypha)

Such would have been part-and-parcel of the language and world view of Nicodemus and contemporary Jews of Second Temple Judaism.

2.     When Jesus discusses “water and of the spirit,” he is not, in this locution, encompassing the combined elements of the first (natural) and second (spiritual) birth, a rather novel interpretation Thompson’s Sola Fide theology forces him to do (eisegesis, in other words). In reality, Jesus’ locution “water and of the spirit,” as evidenced from verse 3, is within the context of being born “again” or “from above” (the Greek ἄνωθεν means both “again” and “from above,” showing a world-play by John in the original Greek of the text). "Water and of the spirit" are the elements of the new birth only.

3.     Some Evangelicals try to argue that “water and of the spirit” is to be understood epexegetically, that is, the conjunction “and” actually means “even” (i.e. “one must be born again by water, that is, the spirit”). The problems is that the conjunction και in the phrase ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος is a coordinating conjunction, discussing two elements, not one element—the KJV and modern translations are universal in translating it “water and [of the] spirit.” Take some translations from the Evangelical Protestant camp, for instance:

Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit" (NIV)

Jesus answered, "I assure you: Unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (ESV)

 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (NASB [1995 update])

 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (NKJV)

While και can sometimes be used epexegetically, it is very rare in the New Testament and LXX; the predominant function is coordinating, so unless one has good reason, "and" means, well, "and," which is the natural reading of the verse, unless one wishes to defend a dogma (in this case, a purely symbolic view of baptism), which, of course, is a classic example of eisegesis.

Furthermore, there were epexegetical conjunctions John could have used if he wanted to convey this meaning, such as  ινα and οτι (e.g., Luke 7:6; Matt 8:27). For more, see Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1996), pp. 666-78 on conjunctions in Koine Greek.

4.     Many commentaries that, while they have a pro-Evangelical bias, do not separate the "water" from the new birth as Thompson does; one example would include the note to John 3:5 in the NET Bible: “Jesus' somewhat enigmatic statement points to the necessity of being born "from above," because water and wind/spirit/Spirit come from above. Isa 44:3-5 and Eze 37:9-10 are pertinent examples of water and wind as life-giving symbols of the Spirit of God in his work among people. Both occur in contexts that deal with the future restoration of Israel as a nation prior to the establishment of the messianic kingdom. It is therefore particularly appropriate that Jesus should introduce them in a conversation about entering the kingdom of God. Note that the Greek word πνεύματος is anarthrous (has no article) in v. Joh 3:5. This does not mean that spirit in the verse should be read as a direct reference to the Holy Spirit, but that both water and wind are figures (based on passages in the OT, which Nicodemus, the teacher of Israel should have known) that represent the regenerating work of the Spirit in the lives of men and women.”

5.     As for John 3:6 and the differentiation between σαρξ (flesh) and πνευμα (spirit) is between human mortality and sometimes human inabilities, and God's regenerating abilities; it is not a statement that relegates the "water" in v. 5 to be the water of the first/natural birth. Apart from evidencing a rather Gnostic theology (a disdain of God's use of material [here, water in baptism] to bring about His purposes), it, again, represents eisegesis. Note how σαρξ is used in the Gospel and epistles of John to denote either mortality in general or man’s need of God:

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh (σαρξ), nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh (σαρξ), and dwelt among us, (and we behold his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John 1:13-14)

  It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh (σαρξ) profieth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. (John 6:63)

 Ye judge after the flesh (σαρξ); I judge no one. (John 8:15)

 As thou hast given him power over all flesh (σαρξ), that he should give eternal life as to many as thou hast given him. (John 17:2)

 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh (σαρξ), and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. (1 John 2:16)

 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (σαρξ) is of God. (1 John 4:2)

 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (σαρξ). This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2 John 1:7)

Again, to quote the NET Bible: “What is born of the flesh is flesh, i.e., what is born of physical heritage is physical. (It is interesting to compare this terminology with that of the dialogue in Joh 4, especially Joh 4:23, Joh 4:24.) For John the "flesh" (σάρξ, sarx) emphasizes merely the weakness and mortality of the creature - a neutral term, not necessarily sinful as in Paul. This is confirmed by the reference in Joh 1:14 to the Logos becoming "flesh." The author avoids associating sinfulness with the incarnate Christ.”

6. The overwhelming evidence from the New Testament supports the salvific nature of baptism. See, for instance, my exegesis of Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:20-21, and Romans 6:1-4; only by engaging in eisegesis of texts (e.g., Luke 23:43) can one avoid concluding the truth of this doctrine on biblical grounds. Furthermore, most contemporary New Testament scholars admit that this is the case. For a book-length treatment of the topic of baptism from the New Testament and early Christian history, proving baptism was originally done to (1) confessing believers (2) by immersion and (3) such baptisms  were salvific. On these issues, and many others, see Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgies in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), all fitting LDS theology and practice. Indeed, Ferguson, and other scholars, agrees that the texts those who hold to the salvific nature of baptism do indeed, exegetically, support the doctrine. As one example, note the following from a scholarly commentary on the Pastoral Epistles:

The ritual bath mentioned in the hymn is one of rebirth and renewal. The term palingenesia, “rebirth,” from palin “again,” and ginomai, “to come into being” (genesis, “birth,” being one of its cognates), occurs elsewhere in the New Testament only in Matt 19:28. The term was commonly used in the Hellenistic world of a wide range of human or met human experiences, including the restoration of health, return from exile, the beginning of a new life, the restoration of souls, new life for a people, and the anticipated restoration of the world.

 The Corpus Hermeticum, an Alexandrian text written sometime before the end of the third century C.E. and attributed to the “Thrice-Greatest Hermes” (Hermes Trismegistos), says that “no one can be saved before rebirth (Corp. Herm. 13.3). The thirteenth tract of the Corpus features a dialogue between Hermes and his son Tat on the subject of being born again. Speaking to his father in a manner that recalls Nicodemus’s question to Jesus (John 3:4), Tat inquires about rebirth. He understands rebirth to be accomplished in some physical manner and asks his father about the womb and seed. Hermes responds that these are respectively the wisdom of understanding in silence and the true good, sown in a person by the will of God. The child that results is a different king of child, “a god and a child of God” (Corp. Herm. 13.2). Rebirth enables a person to progress in the moral life, turning from twelve vices--ignorance, grief, incontinence, lust, injustice, greed, deceit, envy, treachery, anger, recklessness, and malice--to the opposite virtues (Corp. Herm. 13.7).

 Many twentieth-century scholars, particularly those belonging to the history of religions school of New Testament research, attempted to clarify 3:5 in the light of this Hermetic tract. The tract is, however, much later than the Epistle to Titus and lacks any reference to a ritual washing. On the other hand, the late first-century canonical Fourth Gospel features a discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus, a leader of the Pharisees (John 3:3-8), about being “born again” (gennéthe anóthen). The Johannine account does not employ the noun “rebirth” (palingenesia), as does the Corpus, but it does speak about a birth that takes place in water and the Spirit (gennéthé ex hydatos kai pneumatos). The substantive similarities between the Johannine text and 3:5d-e--the references to washing, new birth, and the Spirit--suggest that both of these late first-century texts describe the ritual of Christian baptism as bringing about a new life through the power of the Holy Spirit. (Raymond F. Collins, I&II Timothy and Titus [Louiseville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 2002], 364-65)

7.     The unanimous consent of the early Christian fathers was that baptism was necessary for salvation, and not a symbol. Outside Gnostic circles which disdain the material world, such was the position of Christianity until the time of John Calvin (1509-1564). Furthermore, no early Christian commentator ever disagreed with the association of baptism with the “water” in John 3:3-5. As representative examples:

For then finally can they be fully sanctified, and be the sons of God, if they be born of each sacrament;5 since it is written, “Except a man be born again of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Cyprian, Epistle LXXI)

And therefore it behoves those to be baptized who come from heresy to the Church, that so they who are prepared, in the lawful, and true, and only baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God, may be born of both sacraments, because it is written, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Cyprian, Epistle LXXII, section 21)

[T]his salvation proves effectual by means of the cleansing in the water; and he that has been so cleansed will participate in Purity; and true Purity is Deity. You see, then, how small a thing it is in its beginning, and how easily effected; I mean, faith and water; the first residing within the will, the latter being the nursery companion of the life of man. But as to the blessing which springs from these two things, oh! how great and how wonderful it is, that it should imply relationship with Deity itself! (Gregory of Nyssa, The Great Catechism, ch. XXXVI). 

. . . Water is the matter of His first miracle and it is from a well that the Samaritan woman is bidden to slake her thirst. To Nicodemus He secretly says:—“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.” As His earthly course began with water, so it ended with it. His side is pierced by the spear, and blood and water flow forth, twin emblems of baptism and of martyrdom. After His resurrection also, when sending His apostles to the Gentiles, He commands them to baptize these in the mystery of the Trinity. The Jewish people repenting of their misdoing are sent forthwith by Peter to be baptized. Before Sion travails she brings forth children, and a nation is born at once. Paul the persecutor of the church, that ravening wolf out of Benjamin, bows his head before Ananias one of Christ’s sheep, and only recovers his sight when he applies the remedy of baptism. By the reading of the prophet the eunuch of Candace the queen of Ethiopia is made ready for the baptism of Christ. Though it is against nature the Ethiopian does change his skin and the leopard his spots. Those who have received only John’s baptism and have no knowledge of the Holy Spirit are baptized again, lest any should suppose that water unsanctified thereby could suffice for the salvation of either Jew or Gentile. “The voice of the Lord is upon the waters…The Lord is upon many waters…the Lord maketh the flood to inhabit it.” His “teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn which came up from the washing; whereof everyone bear twins, and none is barren among them.” If none is barren among them, all of them must have udders filled with milk and be able to say with the apostle: “Ye are my little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you;” and “I have fed you with milk and not with meat.” And it is to the grace of baptism that the prophecy of Micah refers: “He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us: he will subdue our iniquities, and will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea.” (Jerome, Letter LXIX to Oceanus, section 6)

I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." 

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed. (Justin Martyr, The First Apology, Chapter LXI, "On Christian Baptism")

8.     The patristic evidence from the second century onwards for the doctrine of baptismal regeneration force even critics of the doctrine to admit that the patristics were "unanimous" in teaching its salvific efficacy. For instance, William Webster, a Reformed Baptist, admitted that, "The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers . . . From the early days of the Church, baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit." (William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995], 95-96).

Another example would be Philip Schaff, author of works such as The Creeds of Christendom (3 vols.) In his monumental 8-volume work, History of the Christian Church, Schaff, a Reformed Presbyterian, is forced to concede that this doctrine was universally taught since the early days of the Christian faith, in spite of his own theological objections to such a theology of baptism:

"Justin [Martyr] calls baptism 'the water-bath for the forgiveness of sins and regeneration,' and 'the bath of conversion and the knowledge of God.' "It is often called also illumination, spiritual circumcision, anointing, sealing, gift of grace, symbol of redemption, death of sins, etc. Tertullian describes its effect thus: 'When the soul comes to faith, and becomes transformed through regeneration by water and power from above, it discovers, after the veil of the old corruption is taken away, its whole light. It is received into the fellowship of the Holy Spirit; and the soul, which unites itself to the Holy Spirit, is followed by the body.' ...."From John 3:5 and Mark 16:16, Tertullian and other fathers argued the necessity of baptism to salvation....The effect of baptism...was thought to extend only to sins committed before receiving it. Hence the frequent postponement of the sacrament [Procrastinatio baptismi], which Tertullian very earnestly recommends...." (History of the Christian Church, 2:253ff) 

"The views of the ante-Nicene fathers concerning baptism and baptismal regeneration were in this period more copiously embellished in rhetorical style by Basil the Great and the two Gregories, who wrote special treatises on this sacrament, and were more clearly and logically developed by Augustine. The patristic and Roman Catholic view on regeneration, however, differs considerably from the one which now prevails among most Protestant denominations, especially those of the more Puritanic type, in that it signifies not so such a subjective change of heart, which is more properly called conversion, but a change in the objective condition and relation of the sinner, namely, his translation from the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of Christ....Some modern divines make a distinction between baptismal regeneration and moral regeneration, in order to reconcile the doctrine of the fathers with the fact that the evidences of a new life are wholly wanting in so many who are baptized. But we cannot enter here into a discussion of the difficulties of this doctrine, and must confine ourselves to a historical statement." [patristic quotes follow] "In the doctrine of baptism also we have a much better right to speak of a -consensus patrum-, than in the doctrine of the Holy Supper." (Ibid., 3:481ff, 492)

Roman Catholic apologist, Phil Porvaznik, has a helpful page on his Website, "Born Again: Baptism in the Early Fathers" which presents many such concessions by leading Christian historians, such as JND Kelly. Another helpful resource is David Waltz’s blog posts on baptismal regeneration in early Christianity.

The theology of baptism Thompson and many other Evangelicals hold to is without any historical support in the opening centuries of Christian history. They hold to an unenviable position of having to defend a view of baptism that is not only contradicted by meaningful biblical exegesis but also the unanimous consent of the theology of the opening millennium-and-a-half of Christian history.

9.  As for John 3:14-18, 36, (i) it is question begging to claim that statements where one is said to believe (or, to be more faithful to the Greek of v.16 which uses a participle, believing in God) precludes the necessity of water baptism. Notice how nothing is said about repentance or confessing the name of Jesus, but such is a requirement in Rom 10:9, 13; (ii) furthermore, in John's own gospel, one's eternal destiny, not merely rewards in the hereafter, are determined by one's works (John 5:25-29; see the seminal study from Chris Vanlandingham's volume on this issue, Judgment and Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul [Hendrickson, 2006] on this issue). (iii) It also requires that one reject the clear, exegetically sound texts that tie water baptism into salvation, as discussed above, and (iv) texts that show the dynamic relationship between faith, repentance, and baptism, such as Acts 2:38. Finally, (v) if recent studies showing the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 are sound, v.16 proves that belief and baptism are requirements for salvation (some may retort that damnation is linked to those who do not believe without anything said about baptism, but no non-believing person will be baptised, so such a "counter" is vacuous).

Much more could be said, but it is evident that those who oppose the salvific nature of baptism have no true biblical and historical basis for their theology of baptism. The doctrine of baptism is one area where Latter-day Saint theology fits that of (true) "Biblical Christianity," while most flavours of Evangelical Protestantism teaches a theological novelty without any meaningful biblical and historical basis.

Conclusion

It is rather sad to see Michael Flournoy, who claims to truly want to follow Jesus, do an 180 and abandon Christ's Restored Gospel and embrace the false, damnable gospel of Evangelical Protestantism. To see just some of the many falsehoods of this theology, see my posts discussing Sola Scriptura, the formal doctrine of the Protestant Reformation as well as this article in response to one of Michael's new-found buddies and false teachers, Why Latter-day Saints cannot believe Evangelical Protestantism is True: A Response to Dave Bartosiewicz. As things stands, instead of following Christ, Flournoy is under the anathema of Gal 1:6-9. One should pray for him before it is too late (cf. Heb 6:4-6; Heb 10:26-29, etc).