Friday, February 24, 2017

Anti-Mormon Evangelical Refuses to Defend Sola Scriptura

In other news, the sky is blue.

In response to my offer to debate him on sola scriptura, Dave "the yellow" Bartosiewicz "responded" thusly:






Brave Sir David ran away, bravely ran away away (for my fellow Monty Python fans!)

Yet another instance of Evangelical anti-Mormons chickening out of defending their theology.

To see why Dave is simply lying and that I have defended LDS theology and Scripture before, see my pages listing my responses to Bartosiewicz.

Debate challenge on sola scriptura

Dave Bartosiewicz, in response to this article, sent the following message on facebook:




I have told David I will accept if he would be willing to debate/defend the topic of sola scriptura. If anyone wishes to fund the debate (and my flight to Utah from Ireland), as well as a neutral (non-Mormon/non-Protestant) individual willing to moderate, drop me a line.

Here is the outline of the debate I am proposing:

Thesis: Sola Scriptura, the formal doctrine of the Protestant Reformation, wherein the Bible (defined as being the 66 books of the Protestant canon) is athe sole, infallible, formally sufficient rule of faith, is biblical.

Opening statements: 30 mins each
Rebuttal: 15 minutes each
Cross Examination: 15 minutes each
Closing Statements: 10 minutes each
Audience Q&A if time permits

Seeing that Evangelical anti-Mormons often assiduously avoid defending their theology, it will be interesting to see if Dave accepts.



Theological Q&A Session with YSA

I have been invited to do a Q&A session on Latter-day Saint theology and other issues for the YSA of the Limerick Ireland District at the LDS Chapel in Dooradoyle, Limerick on the 12th March (beginning around 4pm). I hope to record this session (I will be using Voice Recorder; however, if you know a better one I can/should use, let me know) and will post the URL to the recording on this blog. Of course, prayers that this will be a success and instill in those in attendance a greater desire to want to learn about and defend the Restored Gospel, as well as the Lord granting me a quick mind on the day, are most welcome!

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Gregory L. Smith's review of "Nauvoo Polygamy"

Back in 2008, the FARMS Review published Gregory L. Smith's devastasting review of George D. Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy (Signature Books, 2008). One can find it here:

George D. Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy, The FARMS Review 20/2 (2008)

The following excerpt dealing with Sarah Ann Whitney shows the disingenuous nature of George D. Smith’s “research”:

The First Page

One cannot, it is said, judge a book by its cover. After reading George D. Smith’s Nauvoo Polygamy, however, I’ve found that one can sometimes judge a book by its first page.[2] “Readers can judge for themselves,” promises the book’s dust jacket. Why it was felt necessary to state the obvious becomes clear upon reading the first page: this book needs judging, and as that hasn’t been done by the author or the editor or the publisher, we, the poor readers (who must pay for the privilege) are obliged to do it ourselves. Fortunately, it isn’t hard. Unfortunately, the author won’t like it.[3]

Nauvoo Polygamy begins with an odd introduction to plural marriage—G. D. Smith makes Napoleon Bonaparte a Joseph Smith doppelgänger by quoting a letter from the future Emperor to Josephine about their first night together: “I have awakened full of you. The memory of last night has given my senses no rest. . . . What an effect you have on my heart! I send you thousands of kisses—but don’t kiss me. Your kisses sear my blood” (p. xi).

It is neither immediately nor ultimately clear what this has to do with Joseph Smith, except that we quickly learn that Joseph Smith also once wrote a letter to a lady. G. D. Smith informs us that “Joseph Smith . . . proposed a tryst with the appealing seventeen-year-old, Sarah Ann Whitney.” By now he had my attention—a new primary source about plural marriage perhaps? The text of this titillating document followed: “Come and see me in this my lonely retreat . . . now is the time to afford me succour. . . . I have a room intirely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect saf[e]ty, I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me” (p. ix).[4]

Shocking! Not only has G. D. Smith proved at once that Joseph’s spelling hadn’t improved much since he allegedly made up the several-hundred-page Book of Mormon, but also that Joseph wrote this to his wife! Imagine, a man writing that to his wife! If the book’s title had not alerted us, we are certainly on notice that this is about plural marriage. (G. D. Smith hopes, one suspects, that we will emphasize the word plural rather than marriage.)

Alas, this document is merely a specimen of the hoary art of selective citation and textual distortion. One must admire G. D. Smith’s bravado. In his haste to firmly fix some naughty thoughts to Joseph’s character, he neglected to include much of the letter. He didn’t burden us with the fact that Joseph wrote to three people: “Brother and Sister, Whitney, and &c.” Now, this is a serious omission by G. D. Smith on two counts.

First, it is a lost opportunity to show that Joseph is a bit dimwitted in the seduction business, not having figured out that an invitation for Sarah to a steamy tryst should perhaps not include her parents.

Second, from the main text we would not have learned to whom this letter was sent. (One hundred and fifty pages later, G. D. Smith admits that “Joseph judiciously addressed the letter to ‘Brother, and Sister, Whitney and &c.'” but still insists that the letter is an example of Joseph “urg[ing] his seventeen-year-old bride to ‘come to night’ and ‘comfort’ him—but only if Emma had not returned” (p. 142). So G. D. Smith must have realized that this is an important bit of information. The entire letter has been available for decades. In fact, it was printed in full by Signature Books in 1995.[5]

Not content to rely on the reader’s memory of 1995, I include the entire letter below. Joseph begins:

I take this oppertunity to communi[c]ate, some of my feelings, privetely at this time, which I want you three Eternaly to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you since what has pased lately between us, that the time of my abscence from you seems so long, and dreary, that it seems, as if I could not live long in this way: and three would come and see me in this my lonely retreat, it would afford me great relief, of mind, if those with whom I am alied, do love me; now is the time to afford me succour, in the days of exile, for you know I foretold you of these things.[6]

G. D. Smith’s distortion is apparent. Joseph does not ask Sarah to come for a tryst, but asks “if you three” would come. Joseph also makes it clear that he is not seeking romance or relief of passion, since “it would afford me great relief, of mind” to see those “with whom I am alied.” The Prophet requests “you three . . . to keep in your own bosams; for my feelings are so strong for you [i.e., you three] since what has passed lately between us” (emphases added). One suspects Napoleon was less keen on having the whole family there for blood-searing kisses.
Joseph’s letter continues:

all three of y you come come and See me in the fore part of the night, let Brother Whitney come a little a head, and nock at the south East corner of the house at window; it is next to the cornfield, I have a room inti=rely by myself, the whole matter can be attended to with most perfect safty, I it is the will of God that you should comfort now in this time of affliction, or not at[ta]l now is the time or never, but I hav[e] no kneed of saying any such thing, to you, for I know the goodness of your hearts, and that you will do the will of the Lord, when it is made known to you; the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty: only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater frendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends up=on it. one thing I want to see you for is git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c. you wi will pardon me for my earnest=ness on when you consider how lonesome I must be, your good feelings know how to every allow=ance for me, I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont dont fail to come to night. I subscribe myself your most obedient, affectionate, companion, and friend.[7]

G. D. Smith misleads us even further when he insists (on a later page, unsourced) that “when Joseph requested that Sarah Ann Whitney visit him and ‘nock at the window,’ he reassured his new young wife that Emma would not be there, telegraphing his fear of discovery if Emma happened upon his trysts” (p. 65). Yet Joseph does not tell Sarah to knock at the window—he tells her father to do so. G. D. Smith makes the same claim again elsewhere—insisting that “writing to his newest wife,” Joseph declared that “my feelings are so strong for you . . . now is the time to afford me succour. . . . I know it is the will of God that you should comfort me now” (p. 53).

G. D. Smith also uses “Comfort me now” as the subtitle for chapter 2, “Joseph’s Wives” (p. 53). He later hints that Emma would have to sneak up on Joseph to check up on him, as evidenced by “his warning to Sarah Ann to proceed carefully in order to make sure Emma would not find them in their hiding place” (p. 236). Joseph’s hiding place from the mob and instructions to the Whitneys have been transmogrified into a hiding place for Joseph and Sarah Ann.

G. D. Smith eventually provides the full text of this letter (150 pages after its comparison with Napoleon) but precedes it with the claim that by

the ninth night of Joseph’s concealment . . . Emma had visited him three times, written him several letters, and penned at least one letter on his behalf. . . . For his part, Joseph’s private note about his love for Emma was so endearing it found its way into the official church history. In it, he vowed to be hers “for evermore.” Yet within this context of reassurance and intimacy, a few hours later the same day, even while Joseph was still in grave danger and when secrecy was of the utmost urgency, he made complicated arrangements for a visit from his fifteenth plural wife, Sarah Ann Whitney. (p. 142)

Joseph’s behavior is then pictured as callous toward Emma and also as evidence of an almost insatiable sexual hunger since G. D. Smith elsewhere tells us that Joseph’s “summer 1842 call for an intimate visit from Sarah Ann Whitney . . . vividly substantiate[s] the conjugal relationships he was involved in” (p. 185). G. D. Smith follows his reproduction of the Whitney letter with the claim that Sarah Ann was to “comfort” Joseph “if Emma not there,” further reinforcing his reading (p. 147). He later uses the supposed fact that “Joseph sought comfort from Sarah Ann the day Emma departed from his hideout” as emblematic of Joseph’s treatment of his first wife (p. 236). G. D. Smith’s distortion of this letter to the Whitneys provides the book’s leitmotif; it recurs throughout.

Yet, despite G. D. Smith’s efforts to control how the reader sees this text, Sarah is not the only invitee or addressee: Joseph repeats himself in asking that “all three of you can come and see me.” G. D. Smith hammers his view repeatedly, telling us elsewhere that “Joseph . . . pleaded with Sarah Ann to visit him under cover of darkness. After all, they had been married just three weeks earlier” (p. 53). “Elizabeth [Whitney] was arranging conjugal visits between her daughter, Sarah Ann, and [Joseph] . . . in 1842, as documented in chapter 2” (p. 366). A photograph of the letter is included, perhaps to convince us that this tale is genuine, with a caption that claims Sarah is to visit Joseph “with her parents’ help, in a nighttime visit” (p. 144). Once again, there is no hint from G. D. Smith that the letter insisted all three be present for the visit.

“Did Sarah Ann keep this rendezvous on that humid summer night?” asks G. D. Smith archly. “Unfortunately, the documentary record is silent.” But “the letter survives to illuminate the complexity of Smith’s life in Nauvoo” (p. 54). The documentary record is not silent, however, as to why Joseph sought a visit with his plural wife and her parents: to “tell you all my plans . . . [and] to git the fulness of my blessings sealed upon our heads, &c.” Small wonder that Joseph didn’t want a hostile Emma present while trying to administer what he and the Whitneys regarded as sacred ordinances. And, it is unsurprising that he considered a single private room sufficient for the purposes for which he summoned his plural wife and her parents. Napoleon’s full letter, one suspects, had far earthier priorities than Joseph’s. It is a shame that G. D. Smith bemoans fragmentary documentation while simultaneously twisting the available documents.
There are more clues of Joseph’s intent than G. D. Smith admits. Richard Bushman points out that the letter is “a reference perhaps to the sealing of Newel and Elizabeth in eternal marriage three days later.”[8] Todd Compton notes that “this was not just a meeting of husband and plural wife, it was a meeting with Sarah’s family, with a religious aspect.”[9] G. D. Smith, however, never indicates that such a view is possible, much less likely.

G. D. Smith knows that the letter is addressed to all three Whitneys, and he admits as much in a later reference to the same document (p. 31).[10] Yet the full text of the letter does not appear until G. D. Smith’s version has been urged at least four times (pp. ix, 53–54, 65, 142), and he returns to it again later (pp. 236, 366). And no analysis of the letter, save the small sliver of expurgated text favored by G. D. Smith, ever occurs. He has, in short, posed a passionate love letter from Napoleon with a carefully pruned text to give the false impression that Joseph was speaking in the same vein. And we are only on page 1.


Notes for the Above:

[3] My thanks to Robert B. White for generous feedback and to Blair Hodges, Edward (Ted) Jones, David Keller, Roger Nicholson, and Allen Wyatt for help locating some sources and drawing connections. Any mistakes and the conclusions herein remain my own.
[4] Here and elsewhere original spelling has been preserved where not bracketed.
[5] Joseph Smith, The Essential Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995), 166–67. I use here the version published earlier in Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1984), 538–42.
[6] Italics indicate the portion quoted by G. D. Smith. The boldface text indicates my emphasis.
[7] Again, italics indicate the text cited by G. D. Smith; the boldface is my emphasis.
[8] Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 473.
[9] Todd M. Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 350.




Wednesday, February 22, 2017

The etymology of Rameumptom

In Alma 31:21, we read the following:

Now the place was called by them Rameumptom, which, being interpreted, is the holy stand.

Interestingly, the name “Rameumptom” and its offered meaning (“holy stand”) may represent a “hit” in favour of the Book of Mormon; such is all the more impressive as Joseph Smith did not know Hebrew at the time of the translation process of the Book of Mormon (1827-29; Joseph would start learning Hebrew in early 1836 under Joshua Seixas). The following comes from the entry for “Ramemptom” from the Book of Mormon Onomasticon project:

Etymology
The name RAMEUMPTOM is defined in the Book of Mormon as “the holy stand” (Alma 31:21&23) and is described as “a place of standing, which was high above the head” (Alma 31:13).[1]
The first element of the name is most likely related to HEBREW rām, “to be high, to be exalted,” and rāmâ, “eminence, high place,” the same root that appears in the biblical geographic name RAMAH, “hill” (cf. Book of Mormon RAMAH). RAMEUMPTOM could be a noun chain with râme as a masculine construct plural, meaning “the elevations of.” The -umptom would then be a nomen rectum, possibly from HEBREW ʿōmed , “place, position, location,” with either a pronominal suffix, analogous to the 3rd person plural possessive pronoun -ām,[2] or with the nominalizing ending –ōm.[3] The latter ending is probably to be preferred because of the analog form in Arabic, ʿumdān “standing.” Given these two HEBREW lexemes, rām and ʿōmed, the meaning of RAMEUMPTOM would then be “the heights/ elevations of (their) stand” (RFS), a definition that accords well with the interpretation that the Book of Mormon writers provided.
The Masoretic pronunciation ʿōmed for “stand” denotes a “qutl” form that would have originally been pronounced with an initial /u/, as in Arabic ʿumdān.[4] This could explain the /u/ vowel rather than the /o/ of ʿōmed. The “qutl” form with affix would also explain why there is no vowel between the m and the t.[5]
The fact that the /p/ is the locus of several scribal corrections in the original and the printer’s manuscripts may indicate an initial question in the dictation process about its presence in this proper name.[6] (Semitic languages in general do not tolerate consonant clusters, such as -mpt-.) However, what might seem like an extraneous /p/ and the unvoicing of voiced /d/ can be explained phonetically. The insertion of a bilabial voiceless plosive between the preceding bilabial /m/ and a following dental is not without precedent. In English, for example, the p in redemption represents a phonetic spelling of redeem plus the nominalizing ending –tion. The phenomenon also occurs in the Semitic languages. The common Semitic word for “sun” is šmš, the vowels varying between šamaš and šamšu. The latter form cannot be pronounced without the insertion of a voiceless bilabial plosive, a /p/. Thus, the HEBREW personal name Šimšōn, which is based on šmš, is sometimes spelled with a /p/ when the name passes into another language, such as Greek, Sampson.[7]
The voiceless /t/ instead of the voiced /d/ can be explained by assimilation. I.e., the bilabial /m/ produces the voiceless /p/ before a dental, and the voiceless /p/ influences the voiced dental /d/, becoming the unvoiced /t/.
Variants
Deseret Alphabet: 𐐡𐐈𐐣𐐀𐐊𐐣𐐑𐐓𐐊𐐣 (ræmiːʌmptʌm)
Notes

1.      Jump up↑ The original manuscript, the printer’s manuscript and the 1830 edition all read, “a place of standing.” The 1837 replaced of with for, “a place for standing,” followed by 1837-2013. The reading with of is more Hebraistic, that is, in a Hebrew vorlage place and standing would be a noun chain without a preposition between them. The Hebrew could be mĕqôm ʿōmed, which would form an appropriate alliterative poetic parallel to the meaning proposed here for Rameumptom.
2.      Jump up↑ Nehemiah 8:7 “the people stood in their place,” where “their place” is pointed ʿōmdām; see also Nehemiah 9:313:112 Chronicles 30:16; and 35:10.
3.      Jump up↑ -ōm as in Gershom (Exodus 2:2218:3); Milcom, the Ammonite deity (1 Kings 11:7&33); and ʿēyrōm, “the state of being naked, naked” (Deuteronomy 28:48Ezekiel 18:7 and Genesis 3:7), possibly similar to the common Semitic nominalizing ending –ān/ōn.
4.      Jump up↑ In his “Vestiges,” John A. Tvedtnes has suggested the connection of HEBREW ʿōmed with Arabic ʿumdān “standing,” which is descriptive of Muslim pilgrims on Hajj who stand on the Plain of Arafat with arms raised praying for repentance. RFS notes the ancient Jewish tradition of speaking the ʿAmida (from the same root as ʿōmed) prayer while standing. See E. Werner, The Sacred Bridge, pp. 11-13, 15-16, which relates directly to the form, function and meaning of RAMEUMPTOM, “holy stand.” Interestingly, the term ʿōmed, translated “standing-place” is always preceded in the HEBREW Bible by the preposition ʿal, hence “upon their standing-place,” which may imply a special spot, perhaps a platform for notables such as the one used at the festival of Sukkot (JAT), or a type of “high place” (“shrine” in the JPS translation), from the HEBREW bāmā (see 1 Kings 11:7Jeremiah 48:35, etc.). Some early Christian church buildings also contained a bema, a raised platform, for example at Qirk Bize, Syria. Many synagogues also still feature a bima.
5.      Jump up↑ Qutl forms in HEBREW take a helping vowel between the second and third radicals when there is no affix. But when an affix is added, such as the pronominal suffix, the helping vowel is no longer needed and elides.
6.      Jump up↑ The original manuscript reads “[ram]eum{p}tom” while the printers manuscript reads “Rameu{p(-)׀m}ptom”.
7.      Jump up↑ The Greek spelling of the HEBREW name Šimšōn (a name based on šmš) is Sampson σαμψων. Also, the Ugaritic spelling of šmš is špš, clearly with a voiceless bilabial plosive replacing the voiced bilabial /m/ in the writing.


David Bartosiewicz makes Jesus and Paul out to be liars!

In his recent video, David "No exegetical abilities" Bartosiewicz claims that no single church can make claim to being the true Church:



Compare and contrast with the words the Bible (in Dave's sola scriptura perspective, the sole formally sufficient source of authority):

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matt 16:16-19 NRSV)

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed! (Gal 1:6-9 NRSV)

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all. (Eph 4:4-6 NRSV)


He also sprouts the time-worn arguments in favour of his Evangelical Protestant theology (e.g., nature of the atonement and justification). To see how biblically bankrupt his arguments truly are, see, for instance, Why Latter-day Saints cannot believe Evangelical Protestantism is True: A Response to Dave Bartosiewicz. Dave has been refuted time and time again on these issues, so he is clearly being disingenuous as well as a preacher of a false gospel.

D&C 103:31-34 and God's Contingent Foreknowledge

In D&C 103:31-34, we read the following (emphasis added):

Behold this is my will; ask and ye shall receive; but men do not always do my will. Therefore, if you cannot obtain five hundred, seek diligently that peradventure you may obtain three hundred. And if ye cannot obtain three hundred, seek diligently that peradventure ye may obtain one hundred. But verily I say unto you, a commandment I give unto you, that ye shall not go up unto the land of Zion until you have obtained a hundred of the strength of my house, to go up with you unto the land of Zion.

In this passage, the Lord, speaking through the Prophet Joseph Smith, states that man does not always do His will, and provides a series of conditional statements (notice the use of “if” and “may”) to the recipients of this revelation. All of this means perfect sense if one holds to a view of Open Theism/contingent foreknowledge and not the “traditional” view wherein God has exhaustive foreknowledge, whether the “simple foreknowledge” view or some other variation.

Furthermore, such fits many other texts, including those in the original language text. As one Reformed Presbyterian scholar, while holding personally to a Calvinistic perspective on God’s foreknowledge, wrote the following:

Some conditional prophecies were bi-polar. They declared two directions listeners may have taken, one leading to curse and other leading to blessing. For instance, In Isaiah 1:19-20, we read,

If you are ready and obey, you will eat the best produce of the land; but if you resist and rebel, you will be eaten by the sword. For the mouth of Yahweh has spoken.

Isaiah made two options explicit. Obedience would lead to eating the best of the promised land; disobedience would lead to being devoured by an enemy's sword.

In a similar fashion, Jeremiah approached Zedekiah with two choices for the house of David:

For if you thoroughly carry out these commands, then Davidic kings who sit on his throne will come through the gates of this palace, riding in chariots and on horses, each one accompanied by his officials and his army. But if you do not obey these commands, declares Yahweh, I swear by myself that this palace will fall into ruin (Jer 22:4-5).

The future of Judah's nobility depended on human actions. Great victory and blessings were in store for obedient kings, but rebellious kings would bring ruin to the palace. The prophetic prediction was explicitly qualified in both ways.

These passages introduce an important consideration. When prophets spoke about things to come, they did not necessarily refer to what the future would be. At times, they proclaimed only what might be. Prophets were "attempting to create certain responses in the community" by making their predictions explicitly conditional. They spoke of potential not necessary future events. Thus, their predictions *warned* of judgments and offered blessings in order to motivate listeners to participate in determining their own future.



Latter-day Saints who are Open Theists, like myself, view such to be very strong texts supporting our position.

Blog Archive