I am cross-posting this from youtube. As of writing, I hope to join Blake Ostler on Jacob Ryder's youtube channel to interact with the book.
Overview of "40 Questions about Mormonism" by Kyle Beshears The first half of the book was okay; lot of problems, but was hopeful it would be at least decent. Second half was a huge let down. Here are the good points: (*) I believe that Beshears is a good-faith actor. (*) He admits some popular arguments against LDS theology and other claims are not that good. Consider, for e.g., the following from p. 67: ==It is unlikely Smith intentionally revised his First Vision primarily to match his new ideas about God or to secure power, as some critics have suggested. The church’s explanation is more convincing, which suggests differences between the accounts could be “read as evidence of [Smith’s] increasing insight, accumulating over time, based on experience.” = (*) Beshears does not believe that Joseph Smith (or Solomon Spalding et al) wrote the Book of Mormon (see pp. 112-13 Some of the cons of the book: (*) The exegesis offered in favor of his (Reformed Protestant) understanding of doctrines (e.g., forensic justification; perseverance of the saints) is lacking--the MO is just throw out a proof-text and expect one's readers to agree with it (*) One would not know from the book that the overwhelming evidence from modern biblical scholarship supports LDS theology on God being substantially anthropomorphic in nature in the Old Testament and that the biblical authors did not hold to creation ex nihilo. Ditto for the "number" of God(s) in the Old and New Testaments. To use Deut 6:4 as evidence for strict monotheism is a joke (*) Relating to the above, not quoting/interacting with/critiquing Blake Ostler's 2005 response to Copan and Craig? Even if you think Blake is wrong about his interpretation of the KFD & Sermon in the Grove, he is not "outside the LDS mainstream" on the nature of creation. Also, May's work (who is not LDS) is not interacted with, too. (*) Beshears claims that the "gospel" (as he understands it) has always been present since the end of the NT period, ergo, no Great Apostasy, ergo, LDS claim of a need of a restoration through Joseph Smith is nullified. Outside eisegesis, there is no evidence of any patristic author holding to an understanding of sola fide similar to that of Protestantism (yes, Ambrosiaster and even Aquinas used 'sola fide' approvingly, but they both held to baptismal regeneration and transformative justification; also, Aquinas used that phrase in the context of a hymn in favor of Transubstantiation [which is intimately related to the Mass being a propitiatory sacrifice!]). (*) The chapters on soteriology were a disappointment. No meaningful defense of his Reformed understanding of baptism, wrestling with the fact that baptismal regeneration is the unanimous teaching of the patristics and even medievals, and no meaningful exegesis of texts such as Acts 2:38; Rom 6:3-7, etc. *Sola Scriptura Assumed, Never Proven* Throughout his book, Beshears assumes (his Reformed understanding of) Sola Scriptura. Whenever he tries to defend it, even in passing, it is lame. 2 Tim 3:15 is speaking of the Old Testament writings Timothy knew since his childhood, and as he was living during times of public revelation, "scripture" (which would not have been exhausted by the Protestant 66 book canon at the time [even if Sola Scriptura is true]) was not the sole infallible authority or the sole authority that could immediately bind the conscience of believers. Furthermore, one would not know there is a debate throughout history of Heb 4:12 is about "scripture" (which Beshears reads into this as being "the Bible" a la tota scriptura, which is anachronistic eisegesis) or the person of Christ (the latter is supported by it having volition of will [being able to discern thoughts]). And to read biblical sufficiency into 2 Pet 1:16 (which again, was revealed during times of public revelation) is eisegesis to the extreme. With that being said, I will happily interact with Kyle on the topic of Sola Scriptura. As with so many Protestant treatments of “Mormonism,” that is something he assumes/reads into the Bible (such as Heb 4:12; 2 Pet 1:19; 2 Tim 3:15-17, etc). If anyone can swing a debate between us on that topic, I will be appreciative. Robert Boylan ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
