Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment and engage with my blog post. I appreciate your passion for theological discussion and your willingness to share your perspective. However, I believe there are some misunderstandings and misrepresentations of LDS doctrine in your rebuttal that I’d like to address thoughtfully and respectfully. My aim is not to provoke contention but to clarify what Latter-day Saints actually believe, examine the reasoning behind your critique, and foster a meaningful dialogue about God’s nature as revealed in scripture.
Clarifying LDS Doctrine on God and the Virgin Birth
It is claimed that Latter-day Saints believe Jesus was conceived through sexual intercourse between God the Father and Mary, and that Mary therefore was not a virgin when Jesus was born. It is also claimed that Latter-day Saints reject the "Evangelical belief" that "Christ was born of the virgin Mary, who, when the Holy Ghost came upon her, miraculously conceived the promised messiah."
Often used as evidence are a handful statements from early LDS leaders, such as Brigham Young, that directly or indirectly support this idea. However, such statements do not represent the official doctrine of the Church. The key, official doctrine of the Church is that Jesus is literally the son of God (i.e., this is not a symbolic or figurative expression), and Mary was a virgin before and after Christ's conception.
At the annunciation, Mary questioned the angel about how she could bear a child: "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" (Luke 1:34; the expression "know" in the Greek text is a euphemism for sexual relations). Nephi likewise described Mary as a virgin (1 Nephi 11:13-20), as did Alma1 (Alma 7:10).
You further claim that when you challenged LDS leadership on this, citing the Bible’s affirmation of Mary’s virginity, they responded that she was “a virgin to mortal man” but not to an immortal God. I respectfully submit that this portrayal does not align with official LDS teachings, and I’d like to clarify the actual doctrine.
God as the Father of Spirits: Yes, Latter-day Saints believe that God the Father is the spiritual Father of all human spirits (Hebrews 12:9). This is a spiritual, not biological, relationship. Mary, like all of us, is a spirit child of God in this sense.
The Conception of Jesus: Official LDS doctrine does not teach that God the Father had physical relations with Mary. The Book of Mormon explicitly states that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus by the power of the Holy Ghost: “And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.” (Alma 7:10). Similarly, 1 Nephi 11:18-20 describes Mary as “a virgin, most beautiful and fair” who bore a son “after the manner of the flesh” through divine means, not physical intercourse with God. The Bible concurs in Luke 1:35: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.” LDS teachings affirm the virgin birth as a miraculous event, consistent with scripture.
Misrepresentation and Anecdote: Your claim that “LDS teaches that their god had sex with her” appears to stem from a misunderstanding or an informal conversation rather than official doctrine. The explanation you attribute to unnamed “LDS leadership”—that Mary was a virgin to mortal men but not to an immortal God—is not found in the standard works (Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) or authoritative statements from the Church. Without specific details or verification, this anecdote lacks credibility and seems to misrepresent what the Church teaches.
In short, Latter-day Saints uphold the biblical account of the virgin birth. The notion of God physically engaging with Mary is not part of our doctrine and contradicts our scriptures. I invite you to consider these references and engage with what we actually believe, rather than a distorted version of our teachings.
Logical Fallacies in Your Rebuttal
Your critique employs several logical fallacies that undermine its persuasiveness and fail to engage with the substance of my arguments. Let me outline these respectfully:
Straw Man Fallacy: You attack a misrepresentation of LDS beliefs—namely, that God had physical relations with Mary—rather than addressing our actual doctrine. By setting up this exaggerated and erroneous claim, you make it easier to dismiss LDS theology without tackling the real issues, such as the nature of God in Hosea 11:9b or the incarnation of Christ. A fair discussion requires engaging with what we truly teach, as outlined above.
Ad Hominem Fallacy: Statements like “I don’t post comments with links to false teachings,” “LDS apologetics twist scripture and revise history to support their cultic beliefs,” and “Anyone who can accept that doctrine has been totally duped and LDS apologetics just keeps them brainwashed into their cult” dismiss my arguments by attacking their source rather than their merit. Labeling LDS beliefs as “false,” “cultic,” or “brainwashing” avoids substantive debate and resorts to name-calling. This sidesteps the theological and scriptural points I raised about Christ as God manifested in the flesh.
Appeal to Anonymous Authority: Your reference to a conversation with unnamed “LDS leadership” lacks specificity—names, dates, or context—that would lend it credibility. Without verifiable evidence, this claim cannot be evaluated and appears as an attempt to bolster your argument with untestable hearsay.
Genetic Fallacy: By suggesting that LDS beliefs are inherently invalid because they come from “Mormonism” (e.g., “Your link showed me nothing I haven’t seen before in my 50 years studying Mormonism after leaving the LDS”), you imply that their origin discredits them, regardless of their content. This overlooks the possibility that scripture and reason might support our perspective, as I’ve sought to demonstrate.
These fallacies weaken your rebuttal by shifting focus from reasoned analysis to misrepresentation and dismissal. I encourage a discussion grounded in scripture and logic, where we can explore our differences constructively.
Hosea 11:9b in Context and the Incarnation of Christ
Your original post cites Hosea 11:9b— “For I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst”—to argue that God was never a man, challenging the LDS belief that God the Father was once mortal and is now exalted. My comment asked how you reconcile this with New Testament passages stating that Christ, who is God, became a man (e.g., John 1:14, 1 Timothy 3:16). Let’s examine this exegetically and address the apparent tension.
Context of Hosea 11:9b: Hosea 11 portrays God’s love for Israel despite their rebellion, culminating in a promise of mercy: “I will not execute my burning anger… for I am God and not a man” (Hosea 11:9, ESV). Here, God contrasts His divine attributes—steadfast mercy, holiness, and power—with human tendencies toward fickleness and wrath. The phrase “not a man” emphasizes His current divine nature, not a categorical denial that God could ever take on human form or have a mortal experience. It’s about God’s transcendence over human limitations in this moment of compassion.
Christ as God Manifested in the Flesh: The New Testament clearly teaches that Jesus Christ is divine and became human: John 1:14: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.”
1 Timothy 3:16: “He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit… taken up in glory.”
Colossians 2:9: “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” In traditional Christianity, the incarnation—God the Son taking on humanity—coexists with His divine nature via the hypostatic union. If Christ is God and became a man, your assertion that “God is not, nor ever was, a man” seems to conflict with this reality unless qualified.
Traditional Reconciliation: You might argue, as in your initial reply, that the Trinity resolves this: God the Father remains a spirit, while God the Son became incarnate without altering the divine essence. Hosea 11:9b, then, applies to God’s immutable nature, not precluding the Son’s unique human experience. This hinges on Trinitarian distinctions, which I respect as your framework.
LDS Reconciliation: From an LDS perspective, Hosea 11:9b highlights God’s exalted state, not a denial of past mortality. We believe God the Father may have been mortal in the distant past, progressing to divinity, much as Christ did (see Joseph Smith’s King Follett Discourse). Christ, divine as Jehovah, became mortal to redeem us, then resumed His glorified state (Doctrine and Covenants 93:11-17). Hosea’s declaration reflects God’s current transcendence— “not a man” in frailty—without negating a prior mortal phase. The incarnation of Christ supports this: if God the Son could become man, it’s plausible the Father followed a similar path eons ago.
Bridging the Gap: Both views affirm Christ’s divinity and humanity but differ on God’s broader nature. Your interpretation sees Hosea as proof of eternal immutability; mine sees it as a statement of present divinity within eternal progression. The New Testament’s witness of Christ as God in the flesh challenges an absolute “never was a man” stance unless contextualized, which both our theologies attempt in distinct ways.
Additional Fallacies and a Call to Dialogue
Beyond the fallacies noted, your rebuttal oversimplifies complex theological issues. For instance, dismissing LDS apologetics as “twisting scripture” assumes malicious intent without evidence, ignoring how all traditions interpret scripture through their lenses. Your focus on a sensationalized claim (God and Mary) diverts attention from my core question about Christ’s incarnation, a tactic resembling a red herring.
I invite you to reconsider my actual arguments:
The contextual meaning of Hosea 11:9b as God’s mercy, not a denial of mortality.
The New Testament’s affirmation that Christ, as God, became man.
The LDS view of eternal progression as consistent with Christ’s example.
Rather than dismissing these as “false teachings,” let’s explore them scripturally. I’m open to a respectful exchange that honors our shared love for God and His word, focusing on reason over rhetoric. What are your thoughts on John 1:14 in light of Hosea 11:9b? How do you see Christ’s humanity fitting with your claim? I look forward to your insights.
Update: Glenn E. Chatfield's Recent Response
Rebuttal to Glenn E. Chatfield’s Comment
What follows is the flow of discussion at Glenn E. Chatfield's The Anti-Mormon blogger post titled: God is NOT, nor ever was, A Man. My response to him (which he does not want to publish to his blogger post - and thus may cause confusion among those who may happen upon his content and seeing the discussion) addresses the typical attitude and behavior most critics of the LDS Faith (specifically, those who are apostates) engage in when their claims and assertions are scrutinized and challenged. They tend to become defensive, condescending, almost ridiculing and mocking. Shutting down any actual discussion. Also, the reader will see the screenshot of the actual discussion at the blog post and notice the missing commentary from this writer (which is included in this blog post).
Is it considerate to say that you are not interested in the truth and possibility of being wrong? I posted my response to your rebuttal and address it. I am not afraid of the truth. In fact, if it is adequately shown through sound and reasonable understanding and sufficient evidence, I am willing to admit I am wrong. Are you capable of saying the same thing?
It seems there appears to be an attitude and behavior that is more ego driven and prideful that is more arrogant than one of humility and willingness. It seems you come off as lacking any sense of humility.
I've shown respect in responding to you, attempting to correct and point out possible flaws in your arguments, and yet, it is consistently met with words of harshness, arrogance, and condescending attitude.
Additionally, it seems to do your readers a disservice of providing a response to my comment without your readers actually seeing my comments you are responding to. Almost as if you are attempting to gloat pridefully a way of showing how critics engage in typical ranting behaviors when challenged.
You are more than welcomed to come and discuss these issues. I won't delete your comments, nor will I use condescending loaded language and arguments that are riddled with logical fallacies.
Regardless - you do not have any real authority and understanding on the subject matter since you lack proper communication and respectful engagement.
His response to this:
Glenn E. Chatfield
It is YOU who is not interested in the truth about the LDS. I have not shown you disrespect, gave you no words of harshness or a condescending attitude. I just don't want to waste time with someone who denies the LDS is nothing but a cult built on a false prophet and doctrines built on lies. Your rebuttal was just claiming logic fallacies but if what I stated was true then there is no fallacy.
I never post comments which included false teaching or links to false teachings.
Again, I have studied the LDS for 50+ years and have seen all the LDS apologetics arguments. I KNOW I am not wrong about LDS teachings. Refusing to debate you is not about ego or pride, it's about not wasting time with someone who just wants to defend the LDS cult.
Mr. Chatfield,
Your recent comment—
“Mr. Berman, I am not going to have a dialogue with you because you are not interested in the truth of Mormonism. I have plenty of proof about the LDS god having sex with Mary. Just look on my index on the right side and see the link to articles on the topic. Take your LDS defense elsewhere—I’ve heard it all”
—reflects a stance that, while rooted in conviction, raises concerns about logical consistency, openness to discussion, and the strength of your authority on this topic. I offer the following response with respect and a desire for constructive dialogue, addressing three key aspects of your comment.
1. Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
Your assertion that “I have plenty of proof” followed by a directive to “look on my index… to articles on the topic” suggests an appeal to authority—a logical fallacy where the validity of a claim is assumed based solely on the authority of external sources, without engaging directly with the evidence or counterarguments. While these articles may contain compelling points, deferring to them without discussion does not inherently validate your position. Truth in religious matters, such as the claim about the LDS god and Mary, often hinges on interpretation and context, both of which can vary across sources. By refusing to elaborate or address potential challenges, you leave your argument vulnerable to the critique that it relies on unexamined authority rather than reasoned analysis. A stronger approach would involve presenting your evidence directly and engaging with opposing views to demonstrate its robustness.
2. Observable Attitude and Behavior: Dismissiveness and Prejudgment
Your statement, “I am not going to have a dialogue with you because you are not interested in the truth of Mormonism,” coupled with “Take your LDS defense elsewhere—I’ve heard it all,” reveals a dismissive and confrontational attitude. This response prejudges my intentions, assuming a lack of interest in truth without evidence, and shuts down discussion before it can begin. The phrase “I’ve heard it all” further implies that any defense or alternative perspective is unworthy of consideration simply because it is familiar to you. Such behavior suggests a reluctance to have your views scrutinized, which comes across as arbitrarily dismissive. Openness to dialogue—even with those who disagree—signals confidence in one’s position, whereas this approach risks appearing defensive and closed-off, limiting the potential for mutual understanding.
3. Impact on Credibility and Authority: Diminished by Arbitrary Dismissiveness
The combination of refusing dialogue and relying on external sources without engagement continues to erode your credibility and authority on this subject. Credibility rests not just on what you know, but on your willingness to defend it through reasoned exchange. By dismissing discussion with an air of finality, you appear evasive, which may lead others to question the strength or depth of your understanding. Authority is bolstered by demonstrating a capacity to address challenges head-on, yet your arbitrary dismissiveness— “Take your LDS defense elsewhere”—suggests a lack of confidence in confronting counterarguments directly. This approach alienates those who might otherwise engage with your perspective, reducing its persuasive impact and casting doubt on your ability to represent the topic with nuance or fairness.
4. An Invitation to Constructive Engagement
I respectfully encourage you to reconsider this stance. Dialogue does not demand agreement, but it does offer an opportunity to refine and strengthen your position through scrutiny. If you believe strongly in your proof regarding the LDS god and Mary, presenting it openly and addressing counterpoints would only enhance your credibility. Arbitrary dismissiveness serves neither your argument nor the pursuit of truth; it deepens divisions rather than bridges them. I invite you to share your perspective directly—perhaps by summarizing the key evidence from your articles—and engage with any questions or challenges that arise. Such an approach would reflect both intellectual rigor and a genuine commitment to understanding, qualities that elevate authority far more than a reliance on external references alone.
In closing, while I respect your conviction, I urge you to reflect on how this dismissive tone and avoidance of discussion may weaken your influence. Truth, to resonate, must stand up to inquiry, not sidestep it. I remain open to a thoughtful exchange, should you choose to pursue one.
2. Research suggests Thomas's responses include assertions and ad hominem attacks, such as questioning credibility of LDS Scholarship, without countering the evidence previously presented. Almost seemingly arguing in the same attitude and behavior of atheists who deny any actual Christian scholarship and arbitrarily dismissing such evidence.
3. The evidence leans toward Thomas failing to properly engage in honest dialogue as he continues to perpetuate misinformation, utilization of dishonest and manipulative tactics, and attempt to argue there is contradiction of the first vision accounts - the same standard of scrutiny and argument he (as many other critics refuse to apply) to the contradictions found within the Synoptic and Johannine gospel resurrection accounts. This is known as special pleading argumentation.
4. Thomas also engages in arbitrary dismissiveness regarding any collaboration and possible evidence that actually is coming forth in support of the Book of Mormon authenticity. Majority of the time, critics like Michael Thomas typically move the goal post when their arguments against the Book of Mormon lose ground and they refuse to accept the simple reality and truth of its authenticity.
5. His arbitrary dismissiveness also appears to run rampant in dismissing Latter-day Saint academics and apologetics - leaving key issues unaddressed.
6. An unexpected detail appears with Michael Thomas's reliance on quotes like Boyd K. Packer's, which imply the implementation of red herring logical fallacies, an implied bias and prejudicial narrow-minded view of Latter-day Saint scholarship and academics that have evolved over the years. He does this to obfuscate and arbitrarily dismiss any personal and intellectual accountability to refute specific claims - highlighting an intellectual honest gap of substantive dialogue.
Brief Analysis of Michael Thomas's Critique
Michael Thomas's recent critique of my response to The Challenge of Mormon 'Apologists' appears to fall very short in addressing six specific key points I raised regarding Latter-day Saint (LDS) Apologetics. Instead of engaging with the specific issues I brought up, Thomas seemed to resort to broad dismissals and questions any credibility of LDS Scholarship - which does not effectively counter any concerns I've brought attention to. He almost argues in the same manner atheists tend to argue in challenging claims made by Christian apologists.
First Vision Accounts:
Thomas initially asserted that Joseph Smith's first vision accounts cannot be reconciled, yet does not offer any thoughtful, sound, and reasonable explanation that offer a counterpoint to how the first vision accounts are harmonized. This leaves his critique empty and void - incomplete as it fails to address my context-driven explanations. Is he willing to use the same critique and standard of argument to deny the reality and authenticity of the Resurrection accounts that are contradictory to one another? No, because he will most likely rely on how they are actually told to different audiences, offering nuance understanding from those perspectives, and attempt to harmonize them within the pericope of an overall Biblical Narrative.
Another issue is the contradictory nature of Paul's own testimony of what happened on the Road to Damascus - all three recorded accounts in the Book of Acts vary from one another, showing one may argue that they are contradictory.
The question posited is this: How are critics, like Michael Thomas, able and willing to reconcile the variant resurrection accounts - yet take issue with pointing out so-called irreconcilable differences between Joseph Smith's first vision accounts? Most likely, and I am gendering a hypothetical guess here - they don't want to admit the reality of truth that Joseph Smith's accounts are true, genuine, and real.
If critics, like Michael Thomas were to actually engage in due diligence of studying the historical and social context of Joseph Smith and his First Vision accounts he will actually find that others had similar experiences, and many of their accounts vary - depending on the audience. Take for instance the account of Elias Boudinot in a letter he penned during the war of 1812. Or consider the account Charles G. Finney recounted and the vision he received - 18 months after Joseph Smith Jr. First Vision.
Book of Mormon Evidence
Critics, like Michael Thomas refuse to engage in the actual scholarship and evidence coming forth regarding the nature of the Book of Mormon. He seems hyper focused on Alma 36 and the mention of Chiasmus - making a blanket "gotcha statement" without providing any citation or source of reference to look up and consult. Again, faltering and failing in intellectual integrity and honesty in his response.
The complexity of the mounting Book of Mormon evidence is quite nuanced and expanding with new discoveries and scholarships. For instance:
Critics claimed Horses never existed in the America's until the coming of the Conquistador's. However, recent discoveries have flipped the script on this old argument and have scientifically and archaeologically proven the claim moot and unreliable. (Source: Smithsonian Institue: New Research Rewrites the History of American Horses).
1964 was the discovery of three gold leaf metal plates to be dated to about 500 B.C. and are known as the Pyrgi Tablets. This is known as the Golden Etruscan Orphic Book.
Pedro de Cieza de Leon wrote Second Chronicles of Peru and recounts something quite interesting that corroborates the central focus of the Book of Mormon - and that is the appearance of Christ to the ancient inhabitants of the Americas as recorded in 3 Nephi. This work was translated and published by the Hakluyt Society in 1883 - 53 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon.
Such evidence above is a mere sampling - and most likely enough to establish reasonable doubt regarding the oft parroted claim that there is no archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon.
What this says is that critics like Michael Thomas engage in straining at gnats all the while swallowing camels (Matthew 23:24) in their pedestrian apologetic meanderings and gotcha statements.
Latter-day Scholarship and Academia
Whenever one engages in critics - one of the more oft tactics is their refusal to accept any Latter-day Saint scholarship. Reasoning: Critics attempt to claim that it is highly biased and prejudicial. The only reason they make such a claim is most likely a way for them to obfuscate and arbitrarily dismiss any intellectual integrity and honesty in actually engaging in the scholarship presented. It is the same line of reasoning some atheists refuse to accept Christian scholarship because of it being highly biased and prejudicial. Thus, if Christians do not accept arbitrary dismissiveness from atheists - then how is it they are able to justify and rationalize the very same attitude and behavior of doing the same thing - arguing like atheists.
Thomas challenges the objectivity of Latter-day Saint scholarship and academics by citing their church affiliation yet does not offer any sound and reasonable evaluation of the merit of presented arguments and claims within given scholarship and field of study. He is missing a substantive chance for an honest discussion and engagement. Merely engaging in arbitrary dismissiveness to absolve any intellectual responsibility in addressing the very research and studies that provide a sounder and more reasonable defense, understanding, and support of the Restored Gospel. Most likely - it threatens his very entrenched confirmation bias.
Polytheism and Henotheism in Ancient Israelite Culture prior to the Second Temple Era
Regarding Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 8:5 where he talks of "Gods many and Lords many" - Thomas labels polytheism and henotheism as heresies without addressing any specific references I have brought up. In fact, he misses the point in my bring attention to the late Dr. Michael Heiser's scholarship and research on Psalm 82 and John 10. Heiser has a video on how Jesus - as YHWH is the Destroyer of Gods.
Dr. Michael Heiser also addresses the Biblical reference of "other Gods" in two videos: the Gods of the Bible Part 1 and 2. The Late Dr. Michael Heiser is not the only one that addresses the nature of the Divine Council and Ancient Israelite religious landscape that was predominately henotheistic and polytheistic.
Maybe he needs to engage in serious due diligence and read the following works (available for purchase through my Amazon Associate Affiliate Link):
According to the Bible, Ancient Israel's neighbors worshipped a wide variety of gods. In recent years scholars have sought a better understanding of this early polytheistic milieu and its relation to Yahweh, the God of Israel. Drawing on ancient Ugaritic Texts and looking closely at Ugaritic deities, Mark Smith examines the meaning of divinity" in the ancient near East and considers how this concept applies to YHWH
In this remarkable, acclaimed history of the development of monotheism, Mark S. Smith explains how Israel's religion evolved from a cult of Yahweh as a primary deity among many to a fully defined monotheistic faith with Yahweh as sole God. Reupdating the traditional view that Israel was fundamentally different in culture and religion from its Canaanite neighbors, this provocative book argues that Israelite religion developed, at least in part, from the religion of Canaan. Drawing on epigraphic and archaeological sources, Smith cogently demonstrates that Israelite religion was not an outright rejection of foreign, pagan gods, but rather, was the result of the progressive establishment of a distinctly separate Israelite identity.
What did "Son of God", "Messiah," and "Lord" mean to the first Christians when they used these words to describe their beliefs about Jesus? In this book Margaret barker explores the possibility that, the expectations and traditions of first-century Palestine, these titles belonged together, and that the first Christians fit Jesus' identity into an existing pattern of belief. She claims that pre-Christian Judaism was not monotheistic and that the roots of Christian Trinitarian theology lie in a pre-Christian Palestinian belief about Angels - a belief derived from the ancient religion of Israel, in which there was a "High God" and several "Sons of God". Yahweh was a son of God, manifested on earth in human form as an angel or in the Davidic King. Jesus was a manifestation of Yahweh, and was acknowledged as the Son of God, Messiah, and Lord. Barker relies on canonical and deutero-canonical works and literature from Qumran and rabbinic sources to present her thoughtful investigation.
The process of leading to the Emergence of Monotheistic Beliefs in the ancient Near East and the time frame in which this development took place continue to be topics of scholarly debate. The present volume is dedicated to a fresh look at both issues by a group of scholars who do not espouse standard views and answers. Exploring specific issues and developments in the religious belief systems associated with the deity of Yahweh from the late monarchic through the Hellenistic period, these seven innovative essays challenge the commonly held view that monotheism was a defining feature of ancient Israel from its very beginning. Designed to help readers rethink the issues in light of recent biblical studies, Jewish studies, ancient Near Eastern studies, the history of religions, archaeology, and numismatics, these essays put forth a set of stimulating proposals that are not dismissed.
There is ongoing debate, discussions, and scholarly research that continues to provide a solid foundation that supports the reality of the rich heritage and doctrinal landscape of Ancient Hebrew and Israelite beliefs being henotheist and polytheistic in nature and understanding.
Again, such preponderance of evidence presented in a court of law will cause reasonable doubt regarding the oft mantra of modern Evangelical Christian thinking and defense of a burgeoning faulty premise.
Given the above sources and evidence - there is also the commentary found in the following:
First published in 2004, the Jewish Study Bible is a landmark, one-volume resource tailored especially for the needs of students of the Hebrew Bible. It has won acclaim from readers in all religious traditions.
Published by the Jewish Publication Society and is a TANAKH translation - with explanatory notes, introductory materials, and essays by leading biblical scholars on virtually on every aspect of the text, the world in which it was written, its interpretation, and its role in Jewish life. The quality of scholarship, easy-to-navigate format, and vibrant supplementary features bring the ancient text to life.
The second edition includes revised annotations for nearly the entire Bible, as well as forty new and updated essays on many of the issues in Jewish interpretation, Jewish worship, in the Biblical and post-biblical periods, and the influence of the Hebrew Bible in the ancient world.
Certainly, Michael Thomas is willing to avail himself toward a more due diligence of study rather than emotional rantings of an intellectual castrated individual.
Exaltation and Eternal Progression Theology - Very Biblical
Probably the greatest threat to modern Evangelical Christian apologetics, and individuals like Michael Thomas, is that they inevitably show their lack of Biblical literacy, understanding, and even exegetical interpretative means. In short, they inevitably call Christ a liar. And nothing stands more in contradiction to Biblical Truth than how critics denounce the very Biblical foundation of theosis - exaltation and eternal progression. A doctrine Christ himself taught himself.
The doctrine of theosis - or exaltation and eternal progression first shows up in Matthew 19:16-20:23. Towards the end of Matthew 19, Peter asks the Savior what is for them (he and the disciples) since they have forsaken all (which came after the pericope of the rich young ruler). Christ response that Peter and the Disciples will be with Christ - seated upon thrones of glory with Christ to Judge the Twelve Tribes of Israel:
Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
Christ continues and states that ... everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my names sake, will receive a hundredfold and will inherit eternal life.
He continues with the parable of the laborers in the vineyard in Matthew 20. Afterward, the mother of the two sons of Zebedee come and petitions Christ:
"Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. And he said to her, "What do you want" She said to him, "Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom." Jesus answered, "You don't know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?" They said to him, "we are able." He said to them, "You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those whom it has been prepared by my father."
Not only this - when you examine Revelation 2 - 3, you find Christ (who identifies himself as the Alpha and the Omega) giving John a commandment to write to the Seven Angels and the Seven Churches (Revelation 1:17-20). At the end of each letter to the seven angels and the seven churches - Christ provides interesting statements regarding the blessings to those who overcome as he overcame.
Exaltation is also tied into the idea of eternal progression where we bring glory to God through ongoing sanctification and glorification. It is the highest form of salvation where we are invited to live with our Heavenly Father and partake in his divine nature. What this means is that through the restoration of the sealing power of the keys of the priesthood — families possess the opportunity to be exalted together. It is the aspect of where we understand the nature and meaning of the fulness of the Gospel.
The Apostle John writes upon the nature of this in Revelation. Given to him by Christ himself:
Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. he that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit hath saith unto the Churches. (Revelation 3:12–13, KJV).
What is interesting here is that John’s revelation begins as a command to write unto the Seven Churches. Christ, then, addresses each church individually. Within each of these, John records several times where Christ refers to individuals overcoming and receiving Glory. Dressed in garments of white linen, and even purchasing refined gold.
Writing to the Church in Ephesus: Christ ends with, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to unto the Churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.
Writing to the Church of Smyrna: Christ ends with, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death
Writing to the Church in Pergamos: Christ ends with, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth”
Writing to the Church in Thyatira: Christ says this, “And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. And I will give him the morning star. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches.”
Writing to the Church in Sardis: Christ gives John this message, “He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Churches”
Writing unto the Church in Philadelphia: Christ says this to John the Revelator, “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.”
Writing to the Church of the Laodiceans: John records Christ saying, “I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyeslave, that thou mayest see. AS many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the Seven Churches.”
Elijah’s visitation to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery involved the restoration of priesthood keys. These keys gave Joseph Smith the power and authority to bind heaven and earth through sacred temple ordinances. A fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Along with sacred temple ordinances pertaining to the salvation and exaltation of humanity. Through the restoration of these keys, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints receive:
A New Name: “I will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.” Echoes the sacred temple ritual where individuals receive a new name. This symbolizes a personal and sacred connection with God, known only to the Individual and God. It is binding covenants and blessings. We see this occur throughout the Old and New Testament. Jacob wrestled with God and when the Lord touched his hip — Jacob requested a blessing. God gave him a new name, Israel, and a blessing. Peter, when giving his confession as a response to the Saviors question, received a new name and a blessing to receive the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.
Temple Garments and Clothing: Revelation is rich with symbolism and one of those involves believers being “clothed in white raiment”. This clothing represents purity, holiness, and preparation for divine presence. White raiment also represents the need for spiritual cleanliness and worthiness to stand before God.
Exaltation: Partaking from the Tree of Life signifies eternal life and the presence of God. Along with this is the promise of “not being hurt by the second death”. An implication of protection from spiritual death — an idea central to the doctrine of exaltation. Matthew 28:10 is a good reminder where Christ taught that we are not to fear those who have the capability to kill the body. We are to fear God who has the power and authority to destroy both body and soul.
Kingship and Divinity: The symbolism of Power over notions and ruling “with a rod of iron” gives insight into divine authority. Kingship parallel’s priesthood power and authority. The blessing and promise here is to become like Christ. To share in his divine nature and authority as we are seated with him on his throne. A promise that the mother of the two sons of Zebedee requested of Christ. To which, Christ says: “…but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.” (Matthew 20:20–23).
Power and Authority: Along with Kingship and Divinity, they symbolism of being made as a “pillar in the temple of my God” reflects priesthood authority and the sealing power associated with that. Meaning, individuals are not mere participants, they are integral and permanent aspects of fulfilling God’s will and purpose. It is this priesthood power and authority that further assists God in bringing to past the immortality and eternal life of humanity. In essence, priesthood power and authority are the divine structure of God’s kingdom here on earth.
Receiving the Morning Star: For me, this came as a shock as I sat down to study out this week’s come follow me. A significant and profound symbol. Revelation 22:16 identifies Jesus Christ as the Morning Star. Isaiah 14:12 — one reads about how Lucifer is the fallen Morning Star. Contextually, it is referring to a particular king. However, the Hebrew is helel and means “shining one” or “light-bearer”. Both Christ and the Adversary are referred to as “morning stars” and “Light bearers” or “shining ones”. Job gives further evidence that at the dawn of creation, the morning stars sang together with the Sons of God (Job 38:7). Morning Star symbolizes Christ’s preeminence, divinity, and glory. The promise that Christ will give those who overcome the “morning star” is profound in that Christ is saying that we will be rewarded by sharing in his glory. It is the ultimate blessing and gift of God where we receive divine light, guidance, and the promise of becoming like Christ — embodying all his attributes and qualities.
Here is the clarity of the Morning Star. Since it symbolizes Christ’s divine nature and glory. His role as the light of the world (John 8:12). And his preeminence over all creation (Colossians 1:15-19). The blessing Christ imparts unto all those who overcome, as he overcame, this world refers to promise of sharing in his glory, divinity, and authority. A promise of becoming Christ-like. Because he is the light of the world, and we come to follow him — we partake in this light and participate in the eternal work of bring people unto Christ. It is the core essence of temple ordinances — to bring people into sacred covenantal relationship with God in order to become like Christ. To share in his divine nature and glory. To partake of his eternal life and light.
Recognition and Eternal Identity: The seventh blessed promise to those who overcome, as Christ has overcome the world, refers to eternal recognition, hope, and identity. Through the keys of the priesthood restored by Elijah — temple ordinances bind earth and heaven whereby our names are not blotted out. Instead, they are written in the Book of Life. Not only written in the book of life, God’s name and the name of the New Jerusalem is written upon us. This further signifies eternal identity and recognition. Temple ordinances and covenants essentially secure our eternal place in God’s kingdom and presence — only if we are faithful and obedient in maintaining worthiness and honoring our covenants before him.
For me, these promises written to the seven churches, reflect God’s divine plan through the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Restoration of the keys of the priesthood regarding temple sealings and ordinances by Elijah gives hope and meaning. Helping each of us to realize the sacred significance of what temple rituals symbolize when it comes to our covenants, teachings, and symbolic worship. All to unite us in sacred bonds for all eternity.
Intellectually Castrated and Dishonest - Par for the Course
Normally, castration refers to the ability of a male species to effectively reproduce - they are in essence neutered. My reference to how critics, like Michael Thomas are intellectually castrated and dishonest in their apologetics is more to their intellectual abilities being stripped away - suggesting they've lost any capacity to think critically or independently. In a sense, Michael Thoms, and many other critics engaged in apologetics are simply intellectually neutered - they are not or refuse to allow themselves because of entrenched conformation bias - willing to engage with ideas in a fresh and meaningful way. Instead, they might just repeat what they've been told without questioning the credibility and veracity of their claims and assertions. Almost as if their brain runs on autopilot.
What it looks like: Critics blindly accept something as true, mainly from those claiming some knowledge or understanding, following a particular trend, and never challenging it - even if it does not make sense in the beginning. They may avoid any tough questions. Either because of fear and being intimidated (as Michael Thomas points out in his initial article) or they are merely lazy learners - or are heavily influenced by others to maintain their confirmation bias.
Reason it happens: This may stem from long standing indoctrination, social pressure, or merely not being bothered to think critically and analytical.
Couple this with manipulative tactics, bearing false witness, and engaged in consistent logical fallacies produce intellectual dishonesty. This is a willful and intentional behavior and attitude our critics consistently employ. Someone who is intellectually dishonest isn't just mistaken - they are deliberately unfair and deceptive in how they handle ideas, facts, or even engage in arguments. They may know the truth (cognitive dissonance) - or at least suspect it - yet twist things in a way to suit their own personal goals and agendas. In this case, to maintain entrenched confirmation bias and prejudicial religious bigotry. Something Thomas seems to admit to.
What it looks like: Critics tend to employ cherry-picking, strawman arguments, sharpshooter, moving the goal posts, and other logical fallacies as a means to prove their point or engage in typical Evangelical "Gotcha" statements. They tend to ignore any sound and reasonable evidence presented, arbitrarily dismiss it as irrelevant, or obfuscate the discussion. They end up misrepresenting what someone says in order to make their own assertions, claims, and arguments to appear valid and solid. It is calculated ignorance.
Reason it happens: It often comes up during discussions regarding any given political issue, topic, or even religious and scholarly academics and studies. Critics are more about proving they are right in order to win arguments rather than engaging in any meaningful dialogue to gain insight and understanding - even if they still walk away disagreeing with another person's position.
Essentially, intellectual castration and dishonesty is about how critics think and engage in apologetics.
Detailed Analysis of Michael Thomas's Critique and Its Intellectual Failure
This section provides a comprehensive examination of Michael Thomas's critique of my response to Thomas's original article, "The Challenge of Mormon Apologists." The analysis focuses on how Thomas's critique addresses—or fails to address—the six points raised regarding Latter-day Saint (LDS) apologetics, as outlined in my previous response. The discussion aims to offer detailed insights into the logical inconsistencies and gaps in Thomas's engagement.
Background and Context
Thomas, from Reachout Trust Ministries, wrote a subsequent critique, analyzed here, was intended as a Facebook comment but expanded into a detailed rebuttal. The six points from my response include:
The First Vision: Misrepresenting a Foundational Event
Book of Mormon Evidence: Dismissing a Wealth of Scholarship
Mormon Apologists and Academia: Mischaracterizing Scholarly Effort
Gods Many and Lords Many: Misinterpreting Exaltation Theology
A Moot Point: Shutting Down Legitimate Discussion
Mormonism is Mormonism: A Sweeping Dismissal
The analysis reveals that Thomas's critique often relies on general criticisms and ad hominem attacks rather than engaging with specific arguments, leading to logical inconsistencies and a failure to address the rebuttals effectively.
Detailed Analysis by Point
1. The First Vision: Misrepresenting a Foundational Event
I argued that the differing accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision are complementary, not contradictory, and tailored to different audiences, akin to the Gospel accounts (e.g., Matthew, Mark, Luke, John). I cite examples like the 1832 account emphasizing personal forgiveness and the 1838 account focusing on gospel restoration and noted early Church awareness despite initial focus on the Book of Mormon.
Thomas's response, found in the "Rebutting Rebuttals" section, states:
Your rebuttals, they are so typical. A nice cut-and-paste job in refuting the contradictions between Joseph Smith’s accounts is to be expected I suppose. They cannot be reconciled, but you must insist they can in order to maintain the reputation of the sainted Joseph.
This assertion lacks specificity, failing to address how harmonization or the historical evidence of early awareness, such as the 1842 Wentworth Letter. Thomas's claim of irreconcilability is a logical inconsistency, as it does not engage with the context-driven explanations, relying instead on a bare assertion.
2. Book of Mormon Evidence: Dismissing a Wealth of Scholarship
I presented internal evidence (e.g., chiasmus in Alma 36, detailed warfare descriptions) and external corroboration (e.g., John Sorenson's Mesoamerican geography, Hugh Nibley's ancient text parallels), alongside witness testimonies. I argued that Thomas's dismissal relies on a sharpshooter fallacy, ignoring this evidence.
Thomas counters in the "Rebutting Rebuttals" and "Virtue Smuggling" sections, stating that chiasmus is "a literary device so commonplace that authors have sometimes been surprised that they have subconsciously used it," citing examples like nursery rhymes and Milton's works. He also questions the credibility of Mormon scholarship, asking, "What do outside reviewers make of the Book of Mormon, or are Mormon academics reviewing and marking each other’s own work?" This approach is a logical inconsistency, as it dismisses chiasmus without addressing its potential significance for ancient origins and ignores specific scholarly works like Sorenson's or Nibley's, focusing on ad hominem attacks rather than evidence. This fails to counter my robust case, leaving the critique incomplete.
3. Mormon Apologists and Academia: Mischaracterizing Scholarly Effort
I merely point out and defend LDS scholarship, citing peer-reviewed works from FARMS (now part of BYU's Maxwell Institute) and FAIR, and figures like Sorenson and Nibley, arguing that Thomas's portrayal as obfuscation is a strawman.
Thomas, in the "Virtue Smuggling" and later sections, recounts a conversation with Tyndale House academics who respected BYU's Isaiah scroll work but were skeptical of the Book of Mormon, and cites Jason J. Barker and Karl Sandberg to argue that Mormon scholarship is limited by orthodoxy and orthopraxy, quoting Sandberg: "There are prominent examples of Mormon scholarship whose purpose appears to be that of giving scholarly permission to people to believe what they already believed." He also quotes Boyd K. Packer: "Some things that are true are not very useful," suggesting bias. While this challenges objectivity, it is a logical inconsistency, as it does not evaluate the specific arguments (e.g., Sorenson's archaeological parallels) but attacks the source. This fails to address my point about scholarly rigor, relying on general skepticism.
4. Gods Many and Lords Many: Misinterpreting Exaltation Theology
I argue that LDS theology is henotheistic, not polytheistic, citing biblical hints like Psalm 82:1 ("God stands in the congregation of the mighty; he judges among the gods") and 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, aligning with exaltation theology.
Not only that, but you also have Isaiah 24:21-23 where Isaiah is speaking eschatologically in relation to YHWH's glory will be before His Elders when he destroys all powers in heaven and on earth below.
Thomas, in "Rebutting Rebuttals," responds: "I have misrepresented you as a polytheist when you are a henotheist? Really? That is your defence? Both are heresies, both put Mormonism outside the scope of orthodoxy." He adds that "The God of the Bible exhausts the category of ‘God,’" and notes Michael Heiser's Trinitarian stance, disagreeing with Latter-day Saint and consistent Biblical Scholarship interpretations. This is a logical inconsistency, as Thomas does not engage with the biblical passages I cited, such as Psalm 82, instead asserting heresy without exegesis. This fails to address Berman's nuanced argument, leaving the theological discussion unaddressed.
5. A Moot Point: Shutting Down Legitimate Discussion
My criticism of Thomas for treating theological issues as settled, citing ongoing debates like the divine council, and argued that Thomas's appeal to "settled authority" dismisses legitimate discussion.
Thomas, in the relevant section, states: "You say that I assume theological questions are universally settled and beyond discussion. I have said nothing of the sort. Church history is best characterized by the motto Ecclesia semper reformanda est, the church must always be reforming." However, he adds, "Reforming is not, however, the same as replacing," and insists on a "settled authority" in Christianity, not recognizing Latter-day claims. This is a logical inconsistency, as it does not address my specific example (e.g., Psalm 82 debates) or engage with scholars like Heiser, instead reiterating orthodoxy. This fails to counter my point about ongoing dialogue, showing reluctance to engage.
6. Mormonism is Mormonism: A Sweeping Dismissal
I have also argued that Thomas's conclusion is a sweeping generalization, ignoring LDS scholarship and biblical themes like exaltation (Romans 8:17), and misrepresenting LDS exegesis as eisegesis.
Thomas, throughout, maintains that Latter-day Apologetics lacks foundation, questioning LDS scholarship's credibility and citing Packer's quote. He states, "If there is so much solid academic work being done, where are the maps at the back of the Book of Mormon?" and suggests it's an "echo chamber." This is a logical inconsistency, as it relies on general skepticism without refuting specific interpretations, such as the Eighth Article of Faith ("We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly"). This fails to address my rebuttal, leaving the critique broad and unsubstantiated.
Summary of Logical Inconsistencies and Failures
Thomas's critique exhibits several logical inconsistencies:
Assertion Without Evidence: Often asserts claims (e.g., First Vision accounts irreconcilable) without supporting analysis.
Ad Hominem Attacks: Questions LDS scholars' credibility (e.g., church affiliation) rather than their arguments, a fallacy.
Failure to Engage: Ignores specific evidence (e.g., chiasmus implications, biblical references) and relies on general dismissals.
Strawman Arguments: Misrepresents LDS positions (e.g., labeling henotheism as heresy without exegesis) without addressing nuances.
These inconsistencies result in a failure to respond to Berman's rebuttals, limiting constructive dialogue and highlighting a gap in addressing LDS apologetics' complexities.
Table: Comparison of My Points and Thomas's Responses
Point
Berman's Argument
Thomas's Response
Logical Inconsistency
First Vision
Accounts complementary, known early, context driven.
LDS builds on Bible, not eisegesis, e.g., Romans 8:17.
Lacks foundation, general skepticism, Packer quote.
No refutation of specific interpretations, broad claim.
Summary of Logical Inconsistencies and Failures
Thomas's critique exhibits several logical inconsistencies:
Assertion Without Evidence: Often asserts claims (e.g., First Vision accounts irreconcilable) without supporting analysis.
Ad Hominem Attacks: Questions LDS scholars' credibility (e.g., church affiliation) rather than their arguments, a fallacy.
Failure to Engage: Ignores specific evidence (e.g., chiasmus implications, biblical references) and relies on general dismissals.
Strawman Arguments: Misrepresents LDS positions (e.g., labeling henotheism as heresy without exegesis) without addressing nuances.
These inconsistencies result in a failure to respond to Berman's rebuttals, limiting constructive dialogue and highlighting a gap in addressing LDS apologetics' complexities.
Conclusion
Michael Thomas's critique fails to address the six points I brought up in my initial response. Instead, he falls back on typical logical inconsistencies like assertions without evidence, ad hominem attacks, and failure to engage with specific arguments. This approach, typical of Critics within the Counter-cult religious movement - and creedal Christian thinking in general - limits constructive interfaith dialogue, leaving key LDS apologetic claims unaddressed and highlighting the need for more substantive engagement.
