Sam Shamoun, a Protestant apologist who has focused on Islam in his apologetics ministry, has posted two posts on his Answering Islam blog against "Mormonism" and Joseph Smith:
NOTES FOR MORMON DEBATE
JOSEPH SMITH THE FALSE PROPHET DEBATE
Shamoun is guilty of eisegesis of both the Bible and uniquely LDS sources. For instance, he claims that JST Luke 10:23 teaches Modalism. This is par for the course for the eisegesis Shamoun engages in these articles. How so? In the 1866-1867 RLDS Committee Manuscript, the text is rendered:
I use this as just one example of the eisegetical proof-texting Shamoun (and other Protestants) engage in. If Shamoun wishes to actually study LDS theology, he (and others) would do well to pursue the following to actually learn (1) what Latter-day Saint theology is and (2) defences thereof (it is clear Shamoun is ignorant of such):
On the number and nature of God, creation out of nothing, and related topics
Blake T. Ostler, Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought
Daniel O. McClellan, James Patrick Holding refuted on Creation Ex Nihilo
On Soteriology and "all we can do" in 2 Nephi 25:23
An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology
Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness
Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation
Baptism, Salvation, and the New Testament: John 3:1-7
Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30
Christia Darlington, D&C 82:7, and the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant
Daniel McClellan and Ronnie Bray on 2 Nephi 25:23
Does the phrase "after all we can do" in 2 Nephi 25:23 support a Legalistic/Pelagian Soteriology?
James Stutz, “After All We Can Do” as a reference to the Law of Moses
On Joseph Smith and his purported belief in Modalism early on in his prophetic career
Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen, The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths
Blake Ostler, Re-vision-ing the Mormon Concept of Deity
On the issue of Joseph's prophecies (not discussed by Shamoun, but often discussed in other circles), see:
Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies
The Issue of Authority
Shamoun, being a Protestant, holds to sola Scriptura. For a thorough refutation, see:
Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
NOTES FOR MORMON DEBATE
JOSEPH SMITH THE FALSE PROPHET DEBATE
Shamoun is guilty of eisegesis of both the Bible and uniquely LDS sources. For instance, he claims that JST Luke 10:23 teaches Modalism. This is par for the course for the eisegesis Shamoun engages in these articles. How so? In the 1866-1867 RLDS Committee Manuscript, the text is rendered:
<23> All things are delivered to me of my Father; & <and> no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, & <and> the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will <reveal it.>
The 1867 RLDS and subsequent readings of the verse in the printed texts read:
All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.
The argument is that this verse in the JST presents the person of the Son being numerically identical to the person of the Father. However, this is a prime example of absolutizing a single verse and wrenching it out of its immediate context.
In the previous verse(!), the text reads:
In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from them who think they are wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes; even so, Father, for it seemed good in thy sight.
In JST Luke 10:22, Jesus addresses the person of the Father, and is clearly differentiating his person from that of the Father, something that is inconsistent with Modalism wherein the Father and the Son are one and the same person.
Furthermore, even in v. 23, there is a differentiation between the two persons, as the Father delivers “all things” to the person of Jesus Christ; again, a distinction between persons.
Furthermore, when one examines the entirety of Joseph Smith’s revelations, one finds that the JST does not support Modalism; for instance, in classical texts that have been used for centuries to refute Modalism (e.g, Matt 3:16-17; 17:1-8; John 17; Acts 7:55-56, etc) the constant differentiations between the persons of the Son and the Father were never edited to “smooth things” over and identify the persons of the Father with the Son.
I use this as just one example of the eisegetical proof-texting Shamoun (and other Protestants) engage in. If Shamoun wishes to actually study LDS theology, he (and others) would do well to pursue the following to actually learn (1) what Latter-day Saint theology is and (2) defences thereof (it is clear Shamoun is ignorant of such):
On the number and nature of God, creation out of nothing, and related topics
Blake T. Ostler, Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought
Daniel O. McClellan, James Patrick Holding refuted on Creation Ex Nihilo
D. Charles Pyle on Hosea 11:9 (cf. Numbers 23:19)
Does Jeremiah 23:24 pose problems for LDS theology?
Does Jeremiah 23:24 pose problems for LDS theology?
Psalm 139:7 and Latter-day Saint Theology
Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism" (exegetes Isa 43:10; 44:6, 8 and other relevant texts; cf. C.J. Labuschagne on the language of "incomparability" in the Old Testament and Literature of Surrounding Cultures)
Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism" (exegetes Isa 43:10; 44:6, 8 and other relevant texts; cf. C.J. Labuschagne on the language of "incomparability" in the Old Testament and Literature of Surrounding Cultures)
The LDS Doctrine of Pre-existence and Genesis 2:7
Is Latter-day Saint Christology “Arian”?
Kevin L. Barney, On Preexistence in the Bible
Is Latter-day Saint Christology “Arian”?
Kevin L. Barney, On Preexistence in the Bible
Books: Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, Volume 3: Of God and Gods
D. Charles Pyle, I Have Said Ye are Gods: Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament (Revised and Supplemented)
On Soteriology and "all we can do" in 2 Nephi 25:23
An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology
Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness
Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation
Baptism, Salvation, and the New Testament: John 3:1-7
Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30
Christia Darlington, D&C 82:7, and the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant
Daniel McClellan and Ronnie Bray on 2 Nephi 25:23
Does the phrase "after all we can do" in 2 Nephi 25:23 support a Legalistic/Pelagian Soteriology?
James Stutz, “After All We Can Do” as a reference to the Law of Moses
On Joseph Smith and his purported belief in Modalism early on in his prophetic career
Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen, The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths
Blake Ostler, Re-vision-ing the Mormon Concept of Deity
On the issue of Joseph's prophecies (not discussed by Shamoun, but often discussed in other circles), see:
Resources on Joseph Smith's Prophecies
The Issue of Authority
Shamoun, being a Protestant, holds to sola Scriptura. For a thorough refutation, see:
Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
