Søren Agersnap on 1 Corinthians 15:29

It cannot be denied that Paul is here speaking of a vicarious baptism: one is baptised for the dead to ensure for them a share in the effect of baptism, and this must relate to a post-mortal life. It is also clear that Paul himself refers to this baptismal practice, and without distancing himself from it (This is the embarrassing perception which is the reason for some (comparatively few) interpreters making an imaginative attempt to ignore that this relates to a vicarious baptism).

Søren Agersnap, Baptism and the New Life: A Study of Romans 6:1-14 (Langelandsgade, Denmark: Aarhus University Press, 1999), 175-76.

The Doctrinal Differences Between Protestants: Minor Disagreements only?

One often hears the claim that the differences between the various denominations within Evangelical Protestantism are minor issues and are not important doctrinal differences. This, of course, immediately begs an important question—how are we to adequately answer how we know what is and what is not an important doctrinal disagreement? Furthermore, we know for a fact that this is false; there are many doctrinal disagreements among various Protestant groups that are salvific in nature, not secondary or even tertiary, such as church leadership or exclusive psalmody. Such differences include baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, the nature of the Eucharist (the magisterial Reformers debated one another on this, viewing it as a salvific issue), the nature of justification, the nature of sanctification, the nature of righteousness in justification, eternal security, the nature of the atonement, the intention of the atonement and Christ’s highly priestly intercession, the nature of original sin, whether man has a free-will to accept the gospel, etc. –None—of these, and many other doctrines, are “minor” disagreements; they represent fundamental, salvific differences among Protestants, both historically and in modern times. For instance, if Lutherans are incorrect in teaching baptismal regeneration, are they not guilty, like the Judaizers, guilty of perverting the gospel (cf. Gal 1:6-9)?

Some may charge that LDS have their differences too; yes, that is true, but these differences are not salvific (e.g., whether the translation of the Book of Mormon was “tight” or “loose”); furthermore, at least we have a mechanism to intervene on any theological debate and give authoritative answers—the formal doctrine of Protestantism, sola scriptura, does not help in such issues as the biblical texts are passive and have to be interpreted, and such has, in part, led to the inability of Protestants for almost 500 years, to definitively answer these issues (add to that the fact, discussed frequently on this blog, that sola scriptura is anti-biblical).

Here is a partial listing of the differences between Protestant denominations, many of which affect salvation itself:

·       Baptismal regeneration
·       Mode of baptism
·       Infant Baptism
·       Eternal Security
·       Nature of the Eucharist (e.g., consubstantiation vs. spiritual presence view vs. purely symbolic view)
·       The nature of sola fide
·       The nature of “saving faith”
·       The intent of the atonement (limited vs. universal vs. hypothetical universal views)
·       Nature of predestination
·       Whether God is active or passive in reprobation (supralapsarian vs. infra/sublapsarian perspectives)
·       If God’s saving grace can be resisted
·       Whether repentance is necessary for salvation
·       Nature of justification
·       Nature of sanctification
·       Nature of “righteousness” in justification
·       Whether Christ has one will or two wills
·       The nature and limits of sola scriptura itself

Elden Watson’s Review of Bob Witte, Where Does it Say That?

“Where Does it Say That?” is a popular anti-Mormon book produced by Bob Witte; an online version can be found here. Of course, as with any publication associated with the Institute of Religious Research, it lacks scholarly acumen.

Elden Watson, a long-standing student and researcher of LDS history and theology, has written a review of Witte’s publication, which shows the gross inaccuracies and sloppy methodology thereof. Issues discussed include allegedly false prophecies of Joseph Smith, the LDS understanding of God, and the First Vision.

The lack of intellectual integrity of some pop LDS apologists

I just recently encountered an article by Greg Trimble, "So . . . You think the Book of Mormon is a Fraud?" While I accept the authenticity and historicity of the Book of Mormon, I was shocked at the lack of scholarship and intellectual integrity in this article.

For instance, Trimble asks the following:

"If we have the stick of Judah (record of the Jews or the Bible), then where is the stick of Joseph that is referenced in Ezekiel 37:15-20? The Book of Mormon is the only explanation for this scripture. Lehi was a descendant of Joseph. Think Joseph Smith could have gotten that right by sheer chance?"

This is not true--not by a long shot. The context of Ezek 37 and the Doctrine and Covenants itself, precludes an identification of the Book of Mormon with the Stick of Joseph. I have discussed this issue here. Trimble offers no exegesis whatsoever, showing that he has no skills in the historical-grammatical method of exegesis. Further, most LDS scholars do not equate the stick of Joseph with the Book of Mormon (see Kevin Barney's post here).

Trimble also poses this question:

Why are there volumes of books written by non-LDS authors stating that Christ came and visited the America’s a couple thousand years ago just like it says in 3rd Nephi? (See Example “He Walked The America’s”) How would Joseph Smith have known this when at the time no one even considered it?

There are also volumes by non-LDS authors arguing for geocentricity (e.g., the multi-volume works of Robert Sungenis)--should we accept geocentricity? This is an utterly inane "argument."

More importantly, however, is that the majority of LDS scholars do not associate Quetzalcoatl with Jesus. Brant Gardner, a leading Book of Mormon scholar, has an entire essay refuting this in vol. 4 of Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon; a prior incarnation of this article is his article, "The Christianization of Quetzalcoatl." This is a piece of so-called "evidence" that should be retired by LDS apologists.

As Latter-day Saints, we should try our best to be as intellectual honest and rigorous in our defence of the Restored Gospel—articles such as Trimble’s, apart from lacking intellectual integrity, gives the impression to many readers that LDS are incapable of mounting a meaningful defence of their position, in this instance, the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

The Identity of the “woman” in Revelation 12 in early Christianity

Often, one will hear from some Catholic apologists that the “woman” in Rev 12:1 is Mary, and, as this woman is described as being “in heaven” in this verse, this is evidence, if not “proof,” of the bodily assumption of Mary.

Interestingly, the earliest interpreters of this figure was that of the Church as the new people of God, not Mary. Consider, for instance, the following:

By the woman then clothed with the sun,” he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father’s word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the “moon under her feet” he referred to her being adorned, like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words, “upon her head a crown of twelve stars,” refer to the twelve apostles by whom the Church was founded. And those, “she, being with child, cries, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered,” mean that the Church will not cease to bear from her heart6 the Word that is persecuted by the unbelieving in the world. “And she brought forth,” he says, “a man-child, who is to rule all the nations;” by which is meant that the Church, always bringing forth Christ, the perfect man-child of God, who is declared to be God and man, becomes the instructor of all the nations. And the words, “her child was caught up unto God and to His throne,” signify that he who is always born of her is a heavenly king, and not an earthly; even as David also declared of old when he said, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” “And the dragon,” he says, “saw and persecuted the woman which brought forth the man-child. And to the woman were given two wings of the great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.” That refers to the one thousand two hundred and threescore days (the half of the week) during which the tyrant is to reign and persecute the Church, which flees from city to city, and seeks concealment in the wilderness among the mountains, possessed of no other defence than the two wings of the great eagle, that is to say, the faith of Jesus Christ, who, in stretching forth His holy hands on the holy tree, unfolded two wings, the right and the left, and called to Him all who believed upon Him, and covered them as a hen her chickens. For by the mouth of Malachi also He speaks thus:  “And unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in His wings.” (The Extant Works and Fragments of Hippolytus, 61)

The woman who appeared in heaven clothed with the sun, and crowned with twelve stars, and having the moon for her footstool, and being with child, and travailing in birth, is certainly, according to the accurate interpretation, our mother, O virgins, being a power by herself distinct from her children; whom the prophets, according to the aspect of their subjects, have called sometimes Jerusalem, sometimes a Bride, sometimes Mount Zion, and sometimes the Temple and Tabernacle of God. For she is the power which is desired to give light in the prophet, the Spirit crying to her: “Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. (Methodius, The Banquet of the Ten Virgins; or Concerning Chastity, Chapter V)

Did Joseph Smith teach God exists in an “eternal now”?

Some Latter-day Saints have argued that Joseph Smith taught the traditional view that God exists in an "eternal now" based on the following comment in the Times and Seasons, vol. 3 no 12, p. 760:

The great Jehovah contemplated the whole of the events connected with the earth, pertaining to the plan of salvation, before it rolled into existence, or over the "morning stars sung together for joy," the past, the present and the future, were, and are with him one eternal now; he knew of the fall of Adam, the iniquities of the antedeluvians, of the depth of iniquity that would be connected with the human family; their weakness and strength, their power and glory, apostasies, their crimes, and their righteousness, and iniquity; he comprehended the fall of man, and their redemption; he knew the plan of salvation, and pointed it out; he was acquainted with the situation of all nations; and with their destiny; he ordered all things according to the council of his own will, he knows the situation of both the living, and the dead, and has made ample provision for their redemption, according to their several circumstance and the laws of the kingdom of God, whether in this world, or in the world to come.

Blake Ostler in his 2001 book, The Attributes of God (Greg Kofford Books), pp. 152-53 commented on this passage, showing that Joseph Smith did not teach an eternal now, as well as some of the logical absurdities of God being “timeless”:

At first blush this statement appears to say precisely that all things past, present and future as with God one eternal now. Such a reading supports a conclusion that God is timeless in precisely the way intended by Boethius. However, a closer reading shows that this cannot be the case. Reading this to say that God is timeless so that temporal designations of "before and after" do not apply to God is inconsistent with the statements that Jehovah contemplated these events "before" the morning stars (i.e., the sons of God in the heavenly council) sang for joy. Thus, we must look for another interpretation to make sense of the context of the statement. The entire context is describing the plan of salvation and how God preplanned and made provision for salvation of the dead by providing the doctrine of baptism for the dead. A more consistent reading of this statement is that in the deliberations leading to the plan of salvation, God considered all of the possibilities that were likely to occur. In his contemplation, God considered all things past, present and future and he made provisions for all possibilities that could befall the human family in adopting his plan. For example, he contemplated the fall of Adam and knew that it could occur. If it did occur, then God planned to provide a Savior to redeem mortals from the fall.

If read to indicate that God is timeless, it is hard to make sense of the notion that God was once a man as the Book of Mormon unambiguously asserts (1 Ne. 19:7-10; Mos. 13:34; 15:1-2) or that God progresses in any manner as Joseph Smith asserted in the King Follett discourse delivered in Nauvoo in 1844. For if God is timeless, then there was no real time prior to which God became man nor could there be an interval during which he experienced mortality and again became divine. Indeed, the view that the past and the future are just as real as the present leads to a clear absurdity: in the same moment of reality in the eternal now (EN) Washington is both crossing the Delaware and already dead! If God sees simultaneously with his gaze that the Apollo 11 astronauts are walking on the moon, then it follows that Washington's crossing of the Delaware is simultaneous in time with the Apollo 11 astronauts walking on the moon--for if a is simultaneous with b, and b, is simultaneous with c, then the law of transitivity requires that a is simultaneous with c (a=b, b=c, therefore a=c).

The 1832 First Vision Account versus Modalism

Often, critics will claim that early Mormon theology was reflective of Modalism. One of the purported "proofs" of such is the claim that Joseph Smith said he only saw Jesus Christ in the 1832 account of the First Vision, and, they argue, Joseph believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit were not three persons but modes of a single person. However, this is false. Firstly, Joseph Smith never said the only saw Jesus Christ in the 1832 account, so that is a logical non sequitur. Secondly, Joseph’s comment that “the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord" is not a proof of Modalism and/or Joseph claiming only Jesus was present (see this page); indeed, Joseph’s comment at the beginning of the account that he received a testimony from on high reflects language in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants of the person of the Father, so is actually implicit evidence of two heavenly personages being present in the 1832 account.

Perhaps a killer blow to the charge of Modalism being the Christology of the 1832 account, however, is none other than the words of Jesus Christ Himself, where there is clearly a distinction of the persons of the Father and the Son:

[B]ehold, and lo I come quickly as it is written of me in the cloud clothed in the glory of my Father.

The glory that the person of Jesus Christ possesses when he comes again in glory (his Parousia) is not his own, but the glory given to Him by the Father; there would be no such distinction if they were one and the same person.

Suggested Reading

David Paulsen and Ari D. Bruening, “The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths”