Michael Flournoy continues his slide into spiritual degeneracy with a new blog post:
Put Down Your Idols: An Open Letter to All Latter-day Saints
And while Michael protests such a criticism, it is, in fact, just another attempt to spread the misinformed claim that Latter-day Saints engage in worship of Joseph Smith, whether or not they actually know it (similar to how Catholics engage in "worship" of Mary and the Saints, even if they allow a distinction between dulia, hyper-dulia and latria, for those familiar with that discussion).
For a response on this issue to Bobby Gilpin, a Reformed Baptist and someone I am actually on good online terms with, and one which addresses Michael's points, and others, see:
Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology
Readers wanting to delve into the topic should pursue the above article, as it deals with issues such as worship, praise given to mortals, and other issues in the light of biblical exegesis as its primary evidence.
To compare and contrast the view of Joseph Smith in the hymn "Praise to the Man," sung in praise about Joseph Smith with prayers and hymns to and through Mary, to see what is actually a proper concept of praise, as given to Joseph Smith, from that is actually idolatrous in nature, see:
Praise to the Man vs. Marian Prayers and Hymns and
The LDS view of Joseph Smith and the Catholic view of Mary
As I said to Bobby Gilpin in my article, I will say to Michael (and others, including Anson): I truly hope and pray for the day when we can sing this hymn together:
Put Down Your Idols: An Open Letter to All Latter-day Saints
And while Michael protests such a criticism, it is, in fact, just another attempt to spread the misinformed claim that Latter-day Saints engage in worship of Joseph Smith, whether or not they actually know it (similar to how Catholics engage in "worship" of Mary and the Saints, even if they allow a distinction between dulia, hyper-dulia and latria, for those familiar with that discussion).
For a response on this issue to Bobby Gilpin, a Reformed Baptist and someone I am actually on good online terms with, and one which addresses Michael's points, and others, see:
Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology
Readers wanting to delve into the topic should pursue the above article, as it deals with issues such as worship, praise given to mortals, and other issues in the light of biblical exegesis as its primary evidence.
To compare and contrast the view of Joseph Smith in the hymn "Praise to the Man," sung in praise about Joseph Smith with prayers and hymns to and through Mary, to see what is actually a proper concept of praise, as given to Joseph Smith, from that is actually idolatrous in nature, see:
Praise to the Man vs. Marian Prayers and Hymns and
The LDS view of Joseph Smith and the Catholic view of Mary
We do find this (frankly, stupid) comment from Michael:
Singing “Praise to the Man” is more than a problem of simple opportunity cost. No matter how you slice it, the song is worshipful in nature, and since Joseph is the subject of the song, the worship goes to him
Fred Anson chimed in and wrote:
OK, I’m stunned by the reaction that we’re getting from TBM Mormons who are denying that this hymn is man-worship elsewhere on the Internet where we have put up promotional posts for this article. Just stunned.
Mormon friends, here are the lyrics for “Praise to the Man”, can someone explain to me how this ISN’T man worship?
Fred then posted the words to the hymn.
Using their “logic,” let us quote a Protestant hymn, "Thy Word":
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet
And a light unto my path.
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet
And a light unto my path.
(Other hymns about the Bible can be found here [such is only a small sampling within the hymnody of Protestantism--the argument for this one works for all of them])
Using the “logic” of Michael and Fred, this is proof positive that, whether knowingly or not, Protestants worship the Bible, not God. Indeed, to rework their errant comments:
Singing “Thy Word" (or any hymn about the Bible) is more than a problem of simple opportunity cost. No matter how you slice it, the song is worshipful in nature, and since the Bible is the subject of the song, the worship goes to it.
And:
OK, I’m stunned by the reaction that we’re getting from Protestants who are denying that this hymn is Bible-worship elsewhere on the Internet where we have put up promotional posts for this article. Just stunned.
Protestant friends, here are the lyrics for “Thy Word”, can someone explain to me how this ISN’T Bible worship?
And perhaps also to bolster my arguments, I could argue that, "While some Protestants will claim that, as the Bible is inspired by God and is, metaphorically, his very breath [cf. 2 Tim 3;16], and a record of His words, it is fine. Not so fast, however--according even to Protestant apologists and theologians, the 'word of God' and the Bible, the latter which is nothing more than a physical object that is not eternal and not deserving of worship, are not one and the same:
[T]here is a difference between the Word of God, which is eternal (Psalm 119:89, 152, 160), and the Bible, which is not. The Bible is the Word of God written. If one were to destroy one paper Bible, or all paper Bibles, he would not have destroyed the eternal Word of God. One such example is given in Jeremiah 36. The prophet was told by God to write His words in a book, and to read it to the people. Wicked king Jehoiakim, not comfortable with what had been written, had the written Word destroyed. God then told the prophet to write the Word down again. The king had destroyed the written Word, but he had not destroyed God's Word. God's Word is eternal propositions that find expression in written statements. (W. Gary Crampton, By Scripture Alone: The Sufficiency of Scripture [Unicoi, Tenn.: The Trinity Foundation, 2002], 156)
So the Protestant is guilty of bibliolatry, even if they are unaware of such!!!!
While I am showing the stupidity of their arguments in parody, keep in mind, Michael and Fred are being serious in their comments. Such should speak volumes of their intellectual integrity and critical thinking skills (or properly, lack thereof).
Another hymn that is about, not God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, but again, the Bible, consider I love the Bible, the Word of God:
While I am showing the stupidity of their arguments in parody, keep in mind, Michael and Fred are being serious in their comments. Such should speak volumes of their intellectual integrity and critical thinking skills (or properly, lack thereof).
Another hymn that is about, not God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, but again, the Bible, consider I love the Bible, the Word of God:
I love the Bible, the Word of God,
It is the Word God has given to man,
Telling who God is, all that He’s done,
How much He loved me; He sent His Son.
I love the Bible, the Word of God,
It is the Word God gave unto man,
I love the Bible, the Word of God,
It is the Word God gave unto man.
Imagine if LDS had a hymn called "I love the Book of Mormon" or "I love Joseph Smith"--Flournoy, Anson and others would explode with excitement to accuse Latter-day Saints of worshipping a mere mortal and/or object, but when it comes to the Bible, well, I am sure there will be a double-standard if they were ever asked about such hymns.
While browsing through a few old Protestant hymnals I have in my room, I came across one that contained George Fredrick Handel’s “Their Bodies are Buried in Peace”:
Their bodies are buried in peace (x4)
But their name liveth evermore (x4)
If I were an ex-Mormon, desperately trying to engage in self-justification for his act of apostasy, perhaps I would argue that “As this hymn, which is an act of worship, Handel, and those who sing this hymn, are worshipping the dead and are guilty of idolatry!”
It should also be noted that my response to Bobby Gilpin (see above) also deals with, and soundly refutes a meme that Fred Anson once posted this meme on the Mormon Reformation Day facebook page:
The accompanying commentary for this meme, part of a 95 Theses against the LDS Church, reads:
Of course, such is inane, as are the arguments of Flournoy et al. against the hymn "Praise to the Man."
I will let the discerning reader compare my article, Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology, with Anson's meme and commentary and this new article by Flournoy in light of sound biblical theology and exegesis.
It should also be noted that my response to Bobby Gilpin (see above) also deals with, and soundly refutes a meme that Fred Anson once posted this meme on the Mormon Reformation Day facebook page:
The accompanying commentary for this meme, part of a 95 Theses against the LDS Church, reads:
LDS Thesis #80: The LDS Church denies being man centered or exalting – claiming that it only lifts up Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ as worthy of its worship. Yet its Hymnal contains songs of praise and adoration that exalts both dead (#27 “Praise to the Man”) and living men (#19 “We Thank Thee O God For A Prophet”).
Of course, such is inane, as are the arguments of Flournoy et al. against the hymn "Praise to the Man."
I will let the discerning reader compare my article, Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology, with Anson's meme and commentary and this new article by Flournoy in light of sound biblical theology and exegesis.
Update: Fred “I’m a Mormon Studies Scholar!!!!” Anson, coming to the aide of Michael Flournoy (his "minion" to use Fred's terminology) wrote:
And as usual, Bobby Boylan just lobs a hand grenade over the wall of his Irish stronghold rather than directly engaging. I'm sorry Ms. Kriser, but if Mr. Boylan has something to say to myself or Michael Flournoy, then he can do what real scholars do and directly engage rather than sending his minions to do his job for him.
This is a public group and neither Mike or I have Mr. Boylan blocked. Robert Boylan, here we are if you want to talk.
I usually would not waste my time, but as I am bored, and perhaps someone will benefit from Fred's nonsense (cf. Gen 50:20):
1. Fred has blocked me at least twice. He should say “I have not blocked Boylan for at least the third time yet.”
2. He doesn't know what scholarship entails; simply claiming the title of “Mormon Studies Scholar” is just compensation. Further, he doesn't have degrees in theology or any relevant fields (I believe he works in IT [not knocking the profession, just doesn't translate well into exegesis and theology and it shows]).
3. I don't have "minions” (poisoning the well, much, eh?) If someone posts an article I wrote on my blog, such only shows that the poster believed (correctly) my blog refutes Flournoy and Anson's nonsense. I don’t ask people to distribute it, but people distributing it does show their good taste, what can I say? ;-)
He is more than welcome to do the true scholarly thing, and write a scholarly response to my article Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology – I don’t waste my time hen pecking on facebook pages. If he honestly thinks that is scholarship, that speaks volumes of Anson, it really does.
As an aside, for those who wonder why I don't allow comments on my blog--as anyone who reads the comments section on the vast majority of blogs, youtube pages, etc., prove that they are, as James White correctly calls them (I know, I agree with White on something[!]), Internet Ignorance Aggregators. I don't have time to deal with such stupidity beyond reading and replying to such.
As an aside, for those who wonder why I don't allow comments on my blog--as anyone who reads the comments section on the vast majority of blogs, youtube pages, etc., prove that they are, as James White correctly calls them (I know, I agree with White on something[!]), Internet Ignorance Aggregators. I don't have time to deal with such stupidity beyond reading and replying to such.
4. As for Jana Reiss' article, It's the Fantasy Mormon Hymnal, an article Anson references on the comment section of Flournoy’s article, it is the equivalent of me linking to someone like John Shelby Spong and arguing a liberal like them is representative of the Protestant tradition. It is disingenuous, and her arguments about "worship" vis-a-vis Joseph Smith and Praise to the Man have been refuted. Obviously Fred did not read this article or Joseph Smith Worship? Responding to Criticisms of the Role and Status of the Prophet Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint Theology – Reiss, who is way to the left of both myself and Anson, is wrong, just as Flournoy, Anson, Gilpin et al., are all wrong in light of biblical exegesis and other relevant issues with respect to their comments about Praise to the Man and the role and status of Joseph Smith.
I can understand why Fred and other Protestants are annoyed as they cannot stand the fact that they are foisted by their own petard (I often stick to the limits of sola and tota scriptura when interacting with Protestants to show that their own methodology refutes, not supports, their theology and/or arguments against LDS theology).
I can understand why Fred and other Protestants are annoyed as they cannot stand the fact that they are foisted by their own petard (I often stick to the limits of sola and tota scriptura when interacting with Protestants to show that their own methodology refutes, not supports, their theology and/or arguments against LDS theology).
5. In Fred’s “logic”: His blogging against Mormonism = scholarship
Someone else blogging against his eisegesis: Crazy Irish person lobbying grenades. Instead, one has to hen peck on a facebook thread.
Someone else blogging against his eisegesis: Crazy Irish person lobbying grenades. Instead, one has to hen peck on a facebook thread.
Makes perfect sense in a world where he is a "Mormon Studies Scholar." However, in reality, such is utterly stupid.
Reminds me of the following from the episode, “General Hospital” of Blackadder Goes Forth (one of the best comedies of all time):
Darling: So you see, Blackadder, Field Marshal Haig is most anxious to
eliminate all these German spies.
Melchett: Filthy Hun weasels fighting their dirty underhand war!
Darling: And, fortunately, one of our spies--
Melchett: Splendid fellows, brave heroes, risking life and limb for Blighty!
6. Anson has made the claim I engaged in ad hominem arguments. I have always backed up my claims about Anson and Flournoy, including my reasoning that Michael is now engaging in self-justification for his apostasy into a false gospel (Protestantism). He is to be truly pitied.
7. Finally, Finally, Jordan McDaniel chimed in, cheerleader-like, with his usual uneducated nonsense:
Here’s the issue I have with Boylan and his hit piece:
That’s fine if he doesn’t agree. We don’t expect him to.
HOWEVER, why doesn’t he respond to Michael Flournoy and Fred W. Anson personally? Last I checked, they have comments open on their blog. But Boylan doesn’t do that. Instead he writes a piece on his blog and has the comments turned off to boot!
There is no dialoging with this guy because he refuses to have one.
Here's the issue I have with McDaniel: He is clueless. I did respond. Where is there a rule I can only respond on a facebook thread? Also, speaking of scholarship, whenever Daniel Wallace disagrees with Ehrman (just to pick two scholars who disagree rather openly with one another), it is in print and in moderated public debates, not on a facebook thread. So much for the rhetoric of what real scholarship does. Furthermore, to see how he embarrassed himself in the past, in this instance, trying to defend sola scriptura on Jaxon Washburn's blog, check out: