From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: LDS (Farkas) bashing/ Paul's vision/ prophets/ equivocating
Date: 17 Nov 92 03:03:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Frank Farkas wrote about my response concerning bashing versus discussion.

For the most part I agree with the points that he enumerated that dealt
with non-productive discussions (i.e., being closed minded, bringing up
the same old accusations, never retracting, quickly changing the
subject). Using these tactics can not contribute to a legitimate
discussion. They in themselves are not bashing, although these tactics may
be engaged by those who partake in bashing.

Frank did mention one item that I felt defined what may termed as a
"bashing" instead of using evasive tactics. He mentioned:

ff> 4. Attacking beliefs.

as an example of bashing.

I would have to say "yes and no" to that. Attacking beliefs may be 
bashing, if it is done for the sole purpose of attacking beliefs. However, 
it may not be bashing when the goal and the attitude are both one of 
contending for the faith to those who are outside the faith that was once
delivered to the saints. I would term it bashing if it was done with an 
attitude of disrespect, However, it may not be bashing if the unveiling of 
one's beliefs are done in a respectful, tactful way.

Frank also mentioned items that were not really bashing:

ff> 5. Being double minded by applying a different standard to someone
ff>    elses's beliefs (i.e. picking on some inconsistencies regarding the
ff>    "first vision" while ignoring the three different stories given by
ff>    Paul of his encounter of Jesus on the Damascus road).

I usually ignore when someone tries to justify their position with a
reference to someone else's position. This is an example of the logical
fallacy known as "tu quoque." It means "You're another." Arguments such as
these are not really to the point; they do not present good grounds for
the truth of their conclusions, they seek to win assent to the conclusion
from one's opponent because of the opponent's circumstances.

I'll elaborate.

Let's presume that I believe that the Sun is inhabited. Now, I point out
to you that there are contradictory versions to the First Vision. I point
out that Lucy moved with the family, and the vision occurred two years
later, making it 1823; I point out that Smith's first report was that
there were angels that he met with; that another report states that it was
the Father and the Son, another report was that the revival started with
the Methodists, but they reported declines in membership from 1818 to 1821
in the Ontario circuit. Your response to me is then, "You have
inconsistent beliefs yourself. You believe that the Sun is inhabited."

Your response doesn't present good grounds for the truth of your position.
It simply seeks to gain assent for your position, by trying to find holes
in something that I hold to be true. However, if you were to find holes in
everything that I hold true, it still would not reconcile the
contradictions in the First Vision.

     .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .

However, since you bring up the subject Paul's encounter on the road to 
Damascus, I think that it should be addressed. A friend of mine mentioned 
that there are a few Scriptures that representatives of the LDS Church 
usually bring up. He thinks that they must be part of the `missionary 
training packet' that is passed out to every new missionary. The first 
time anyone tried to show him that the Bible was contradictory to itself 
was when he met his first pair of Mormon missionaries, and the first 
passage they gave him was that of Acts 9:7/ Acts 22:9 and the alleged
discrepancies in the story of Paul's meeting Jesus Christ on the road to
Damascus.

In the KJV these passages read:

 Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a 
 voice, but seeing no man.

 Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were
 afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

In some modern translations, this appears differently. Here is how the NIV 
translates this:

 9:7 The men traveling with Paul stood there speechless; they heard the 
 sound, but did not see anyone.

 22:9 My companions say the light, but they did not understand the voice 
 of him who was speaking to me.

In the NIV, the contradiction no longer exists. In the first passage they 
hear the sound, in the second they do not understand the voice. I think 
that once we take a look at the construction of these passages that the
NIV will present this instance as the most credible way. In the Greek we
have:

9:7  akouontes men tes phones
22:9 ten de phonen ouk ekousan tou lalountos moi

The differences in these passages are:

1) In 9:7 akouo is found as a nominative plural participle; in 22:9 it is
   a plural aorist verb.

2) In 9:7 phone is a singular genitive noun; in 22:9 it is a singular
   accusative noun.

3) In 9:7 akouo precedes its object; in 22:9 it follows its object.

4) In 9:7 the phrase is not modified; in 22:9 it is modified by "of the
   one speaking to me."

5) In 9:7 Luke is narrating an event in Greek, in 22:9 Paul is speaking to
   a crowd in Hebrew (or Aramaic).

Clearly, the critic of these passages is placed in an impossible position
of forcing the argument, for the difference between the two passages are
quite significant. The passages are not in contradiction in an A vs. not-A
proposition.

It appears that the passages are significantly different enough to warrant 
the NIV rendering. Supporting this is Vine's, _Expository Dictionary of New 
Testament Words_ (p204-205):

     Thus in Acts 9:7, "hearing the voice," the noun "voice" is in the
     partitive genitive case [i.e., hearing (something) of], whereas in
     22:9, "they heard not the voice," the construction is with the
     accusative. This removes the idea of any contradiction. The former
     indicates a hearing of the sound, the latter indicates the meaning or
     message of the voice (this they did not hear). "The former denotes the
     sensational perception, the latter (the accusative case) the thing
     perceived." (Cremer). In John 5:25, 28, the genitive case is used,
     indicating a "sensational perception" that the Lord's voice is
     sounding; in 3:8, of hearing the wind, the accusative is used,
     stressing "the thing perceived."

Dr. A.T. Robertson, in _Word Pictures in the New Testament_ (v3, p117-118):

     Instead of this being a flat contradiction of what Luke says in 9:7 it 
     is natural to take it as being likewise (as with the "light" and "no 
     one") a distinction between the "sound" (original sense of phone in 
     John 3:8) and the separate words spoken. It so happens that akouo is 
     used either with the accusative (extent of the hearing) or the 
     genitive (the specifying). It is possible that such a distinction here 
     coincides with the two sense of phone. They heard the sound (9:7), but 
     did not understand the words (22:9).

James Hope Moulton in _A Grammar of the Greek New Testament (v1, p66):

     The fact that the maintenance of the old and well-known distinction 
     between the acc. and the gen. with akouo saves the author of Acts 9:7 
     and 22:9 froma patent self-contradiction, should by itself be enough
     to make us recognize it for Luke, and for other writers, until it is 
     proved wrong.

Nigel Turner in _A Grammar of New Testament Greek_ (v3, p233):

     The partitive gen. occurs in NT with verbs of perception, especially 
     with a personal object. For akouo, the class(ical) rule is that the 
     person whose words are heard is in the gen. ... but the thing (or 
     person) about which one hears is in the accus., and akouo c.accus. may 
     mean to understand....We have to ask whether the class. distinction 
     between gen. and accus. has significance for exegesis in NT. There may 
     be something in the difference between the gen. in Acts 9:7 (the men 
     with Paul heard the sound) and the accus. in Acts 22:9 (they did not 
     understand the voice).

     .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    

ff> 5. By judging a person's beliefs by a standard the person never claimed,
ff>    and should never be applied (i.e. the defination of a prophet).

I have tried to use the Biblical definition for prophet, and have been 
castigated for presuming the Biblical definition of a prophet. In reply I
asked for the LDS definition of what constitutes a false prophet, and my
question went unanswered.

The Biblical standard for a prophet is that they teach the people to follow 
the Lord (Deuteronomy 13:1-3). Yet, Joseph Smith, in the _Book of Abraham_,
teaches that Min is God. Brigham Young taught that Adam was our God.

Holding someone to a Biblical definition is hardly to be construed as
bashing. And the only reason I can see to wander from the Biblical
definition is so one can insert a non-Biblical definition.

	.	.	.	.	.	.	.	.		

ff> There is a major difference between bashing and discussions. For
ff> example, Anthony Rose made a claim that our beliefs that the Father has a
ff> body is not scriptural and illogical. When I tried to address the issues
ff> with him he tried to change the subject. When I insisted that we remain
ff> with the issue he disappeared from the scene. He wouldn't respond. I
ff> tried to carry on a discussion regarding the subject but he was not
ff> interested in it at all.

I can't reply for Anthony, but in the brief time that I spent in that 
thread, I can speak briefly on it. The problem there was in equivocation on 
what was being presented. You had forwarded the LDS version that the Father 
has a body of flesh and blood. To support this position, you quoted text 
that mentioned Jesus having flesh and blood. This is where the equivocation 
took place. Quoting about Jesus to answer a question about the LDS concept 
of the Father is meaningless.

I attempted to bring this back with the question of whether Jesus is the god 
that we are to worship. I thought that this would point out your 
equivocation. Yet, you held that we worship the Father and Jesus. It was at
this time that I left the thread.

In hindsight, I should have pointed out that this is classical Christian
theology. Yet the LDS church does not support this view; the view that you
have promoted; that the LDS worship Jesus. In a talk given in 1982, at a BYU
devotional, Apostle Bruce McConkie said,

     "Let us set forth those doctrines and concepts that a gracious God has
     given us in this day and which must be understood in order to gain
     eternal life. They are: 1) We worship the Father and him only and no
     one else. We do not worship the Son and we do not worship the Holy
     Ghost. I know perfectly well what the Scriptures say about worshipping
     Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different
     sense -- the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful
     to Him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is
     reserved for God the first, the Creator." (_Our Relationship with the
     Lord_, BYU devotional, 3/2/82)

Frank said that the LDS worship Jesus. A Mormon apostle said that the LDS 
don't, and that his understanding is necessary in order to gain eternal 
life.

I want to put this forward so that when Frank posts about the Father 
having a body of flesh and blood, that he will not mention verses that 
relate to Jesus; since the LDS view is that they are so completely 
different that to wrongly worship Jesus is harm one's eternal life. 
Therefore, I don't think that Frank should confuse the two in his 
replies on flesh and blood bodies.


=============================
Robert Weiss
psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc