Customer Reviews

The Mormon Defenders

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Most of what is published today on the subject of Mormonism is what I would call "first level" apologetic material. What I mean by that is that it deals with the very basic issues and conversations that will come up between your average evangelical Christian and your average Mormon. The Mormon Church has recognized this, and in recent years, has refined the sophistication level of their arguments, and thus, a Christian confronted with these new (and necessarily more complex) arguments may find themselves ill-equipped.

This is where this book steps in to fill the void by providing answers to the Mormon arguments on the "second" and "third" level of apologetics. As such, it is necessarily more difficult and complex than any first level book on the subject. However, I found it extraordinarily easy to follow, perhaps because I have long since moved beyond the basic stuff. If you are not yet familiar with the first level of information to counter Mormon apologists, this book is not for you, and you will probably find it over your head as did the last reviewer. If you have mastered the basic information, you will easily understand and appreciate this work.

In the Mormon Defenders, JP Holding does an excellent job of showing that key Mormon doctrines cannot be supported by the 66 books of the Bible. Holding examines Scriptures used by Mormons in defense of their doctrines, as well as those used by evangelicals against them. Holding pulls no punches, and exposes where both groups misunderstand the Word. However, he does demonstrate that a proper understanding of Scripture simply does not support God as a man, deification (as taught by Mormons), and other Mormon doctrines.

The book is also well organized and easily digestable. Each chapter ends with an analysis of the Mormon claim that their doctrines were part of the early church, and were lost through apostasy due to the influence of Greek thought. Holding shows in each instance that this claim simply doesn't stand up under close scrutiny. In many cases, Greek though would have produced the exact opposite of evangelical ones. Finally, the chapters end with a summary of key points raised.

All in all, and excellent scriptural analysis of the failures of Mormonism.

This is the first book by J.P. Holding, president of the highly effective Tekton Apologetics Ministry, and I hope it won't be the last. While a lot of books were enough to refute most Mormon missionaries, a new breed of Mormon apologetics has emerged. And although this has not filtered through (even according to the laments of these Mormon apologists), it is essential that Christians are prepared for the strongest arguments they could encounter.

The first chapter deals with one of the most blatant examples of contradiction -- the Mormon concept God being an exalted man. Holding first shows that the Mormon case is wanting, by misunderstanding anthropomorphisms, assuming that theophanies represented God's permanent state, and the unwarranted expansion of the Incarnation that was unique to Christ. Then he presents the biblical case against the Mormon teaching of divine embodiment.

This and all the other chapters end with an important discussion of the Mormon charge that the historical Church has apostatised through Hellenistic philosophy. One important point is much like those who claim our biblical texts are corrupted: OK, produce the *uncorrupted originals* or clear proof of what they said, because a charge of corruption can be sustained only if we can show what the extant texts are corrupted *from*. Similarly, Holding shows that there is not the slightest trace of an allegelly uncorrupt Jewish or early church teaching that looks anything like Mormonism. Conversely, the Jewish historian Josephus and the anti-Jewish Roman historian Tacitus confirm that the Jewish concept of God was one of an eternal Creator of all things. And historic Christianity's conception, in the areas of dispute between Mormonism, is firmly based on the biblical Jewish conception. Also, in some chapters, Holding shows that if anything, any Hellenistic influence would have been in the *opposite* direction to historic Christian doctrines.

The chapters all end with a helpful conclusion and key points, but don't skip the meat either!

The second chapter discusses the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation compared to the Mormon teaching of polytheism. The most important part was analysing the New Testament in the historical context of the Wisdom tradition. Here, Wisdom was such an important and eternal aspect of God's nature that it was personified, so it was known as a hypostasis. The New Testament identifies Jesus as this Wisdom of God, equal in *nature* with God while being subordinate in *role* only. Both the Gospels and Epistles have extensive parallels, e.g. Col. 1:16-17 "by him all things were created ... He is before all things and in him all things hold together. Compare Wisdom of Solomon 1:16,7: "for he created all things that they might exist. ... that which holds all things together knows what is said." An extensive endnote also notes the Targumic concept of Memra (word) as another example of Jewish teaching of plurality within the one being of God. Hebrew Christian scholar Dr Arnold Fructenbaum argues strongly that the Johannine Prologue identified Jesus, the Logos (word), as embodying all aspects of the Memra.

Another important application of historical context is the Semitic Totality Concept. This is applied to the criteria for salvation and in particular the Mormon teaching of baptismal regeneration.

Certainly salvation is by grace through faith not by works (Eph. 2:8-9), so baptismal regeneration is wrong. But under the STC, actions and thoughts were so intimately linked that a faith that produced no works was not a saving faith at all. So in reality, we *will* preform works if we are saved, rather than a case of "we *must* perform works to be saved." IOW works are the fruit of justification, not the root. In particular, (water) baptism is what saved people do, not what people DO to be saved.

It is also important to understand the logic of conditional statements. Some Mormons use passages that suggest a judgement based on works, e.g. Rom. 2:5. But the logic is: IF you persist in obeying the Commandments, THEN you will inherit eternal life. But logically, conditional statements do NOT assert the truth of anything, just what happens IF the condition is met. And the whole point in context is that NO ONE, apart from Christ, has fulfilled the condition of perfect obedience. So our salvation depends on God's grace alone through faith.

Other chapters cover the interesting verse on baptism for the dead, once again with cutting-edge scholarship, human pre-existence, and their particular doctrine of men becoming Gods.

My only gripe is not with the author but with the very annoying American practice of putting footnotes at the end of the book (i.e. endnotes), in chapter order. Especially with Holding's extensive teaching in these notes, it is a pain to have to go to another place to find the note, and also make sure I know what chapter I'm on. Footnotes at the bottom of the page are much better. So I request that publishers produce more reader-friendly books, and resist the pathetic excuses "we have always done it that way" or "scholars prefer it like that". FWIW my three books have footnotes at the bottom of the page, and they have sold over half a million copies, so it can be done!

In "The Mormon Defenders," James Patrick Holding untertakes a critical analysis of the veracity of 7 Mormon doctrines in light of evangelical Biblical scholarship. The Mormon doctrines of "Divine Embodiment," the Mormon understanding of the relationship of Jesus to the Father, "Preexistence," "Baptism for the Dead," "Salvation for the Unevangelized," the Mormon understanding of salvation(and the role of faith and works), and "Human Deification" are critiqued by Holding. The author's general approach in each chapter is to first analyze the usage of typical Biblical passages that Mormon apologists assert support their doctrinal beliefs. This is followed by discussions of certain passages that are utilized to refute specific Mormon doctrine(s). Then, the author discusses historical problems with the Mormon assertions that certain Christian doctrinal beliefs were changed(as the church allegedly went into apostasy). Holding also provides a helpful list of "Key Points" at the very end of each chapter.

The author is successful in providing solid answers to Mormon apologetical assertions as well as positing pertinent questions based on Scriptural and historical issues that must be satisfactorily answered if Mormonism is to establish a solid foundation upon which to rest its claim of being a divinely-inspired religion. More than being a valuable tool in "Christian vs. Mormon" apologetics, "The Mormon defenders" also provides information on concepts probably not well-known, even by most Christians. For instance, in chapter 2, Holding discusses the ancient Jewish "Wisdom" traditions in order to explain how the New Testament authors understood Jesus Christ's Role in the Godhead. Another example would be a discussion in chapter 6 of the "Semitic Totality" paradigm in describing the role of faith and works(with emphasis on baptism) in the Christian's life. From my personal experiences, these are concepts not greatly understood by many Christians and it is the resultant misunderstandings of these concepts that are often the cause of division in the Church. It probably cannot be stressed enough how important it is for all Christians, especially apologists and church leaders, to acquaint themselves with such important issues.

I highly recommend "The Mormon Defenders" for those interested in "higher-level" arguments that address common Mormon apologetic assertions as well as for those wishing to better understand some of the prominent social, cultural, and religious themes through which the Bible, and most particularly the New Testament, was written.

For over a century-and-a-half the Mormon Church has sought to claim the theological and biblical high ground over the Christian faith. For more than a decade I have watched new Latter-day Saint apologists emerge into the public dialog. I have witnessed LDS scholars gain and hold prestigious academic positions in non-LDS institutions. I have observed an increasing sophistication in their advocacy and in their responses to critics. And I have been greatly disappointed as my fellow Christians returned time and again to overstated, largely ineffective materials published to teach us how to refute Mormon arguments and how to witness of the grace of Christ to them.

The seriousness of our situation became urgently clear when InterVarsity Press published an inter-faith dialog between Dr. Craig Blomberg (Denver Seminary) and Dr. Stephen Robinson (Brigham Young University) entitled, "How Wide the Divide?" While Dr. Blomberg brought a distinctly learned and refreshing perspective to the discussion, I wondered at the persistent equivocations on the part of Dr. Robinson. Robinson employs Christian vocabulary, to be sure, but he harbors a distinctly unbiblical dictionary. I was well aware of his rhetorical techniques from reading his books and articles (especially "Are Mormons Christians?"). I was disappointed that Dr. Blomberg did not expose Dr. Robinson's less-than-mainstream (or less-than-candid) presentation of his Mormon faith.

With the publication of "The Mormon Defenders" my hopes have been reignited. J. P. Holding is someone well acquainted with LDS arguments and rhetoric, and familiar with the Bible and current biblical scholarship (whether "conservative" or "liberal"). He discusses such topics as divine embodiment, the relationship of the Father and the Son, preexistence, baptism for the dead, salvation for the living and the deceased, and deification. At every point, he evidences an extensive knowledge of his sources - whether Mormon, Christian or other. And while readers may take issue with some of the arguments in these pages, it is distinctly clear - thanks to Mr. Holding's studied and insightful engagement of the issues - that Mormonism is not biblical, regardless of the advanced degrees, regardless of their inroads into mainstream scholarship, regardless of their protestations to the contrary, and regardless of their rhetoric.

As a former fifth-generation member of the LDS Church, I enthusiastically recommend "The Mormon Defenders" as an able, insightful and engaging defense of truly biblical Christianity. I pray that it will be just one of many such worthy volumes.

Having encountered Mormon apologists and been bemused by their clear misuse of scripture I found this book to be a useful tool in providing answers for their misinterpretations.
I was very interested in J.P. Holding's observation that "the image of God" does not refer to physical likeness, nor even emotional/rational likeness, but rather the capacity to act as God's representative on Earth.
A worthwhile exercise on Holding's part.

James Patrick Holding is "President of Tekton Apologetics Ministries ... and has written articles for the 'Creatio Ex Nihilo Technical Journal' and the 'Christian Research Journal.'"

He writes in the Introduction to this 2001 book, "a new line of defense is being prepared as innovative and aggressive Mormon apologists are doing for Mormonism what writers like Josh McDowell and William Lane Craig have done for Christianity; make the Mormon faith an intellectually respectable faith."

Here are some additional quotations from the book:

"The true power in Mormon apologetics is the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), a consortium of LDS scholars that represent the cream of the crop in Mormon academia... The Mormon defense league is organized, efficient, and above all, certain of itself and its mission." (Pg. 8)
"Josephus says that Jewish notions of God are similar to those held by Plato, and makes the special point that these notions were part of Jewish belief from the time of Moses---they were NOT derived from Greek intellectuals." (Pg. 31)
"Inevitably, we must face the question of what situation explains the evidence better: a nearly-total loss of a quite desirable doctrine (postmortem evangelization), not found in the Bible, that was distorted in manifold ways by the Church Fathers; or, the development of a doctrine at a later date. We see no reason why the former should be preferred over the latter." (Pg. 99)
"Like the LDS doctrine of pre-existence, the Mormon doctrine of 'theosis' (deification) carries theological freight that Mormons admit does not have Biblical support." (Pg. 121)
"The Bible clearly teaches a doctrine of theosis, but that it does not teach the Mormon version of theosis is equally clear." (Pg. 128)
"LDS apologists produce a flurry of citations from the New Testament proving that an apostasy was predicted, claiming that 'Paul spoke of this apostasy,' or that a given cite offers testimony to the fact of the apostasy. Yet it is always assumed, not proved, that any reference to a false teaching, or a rebellion, or to an apostasy, is de facto evidence of 'THE' apostasy that Mormon apologists claim took place. Upon investigation, the citations proved to be either to a false teaching with known content that does not correspond to the apostasy alleged by Mormonism... or else have no specific referent as to the content or nature of the apostasy..." (Pg. 129)

now, i'll be honest--Mormonism is not an issue that i feel troubled by. i am, aside from this book, and a somewhat entertaining encounter with some door to door Mormons (who sent me to the FARMS website), unfamiliar with the arguments on both sides.

in this book, 7 Mormon doctrines are examined under jp's tekton methodology (reading passages in light of the socio-historical context from which they came). jp argues that the Mormon understanding of Scripture, insofar as it is used by modern top-notch Mormon apologists to support their doctrines, is flawed and anachronistic. he takes on the top Mormon apologists, and uses the best modern historio-critical Scripture resources to refute them.
the strong point of the book is jp's sharp and pithy analytical prowess. the book is only 160 pages, but the tekton titan puts so much dynamo into each paragraph that its like reading a page from a normal apologetic work. and on the side, the book is backed up by so many footnotes that you'd think it was divided not only into chapter, but verse as well--very helpful to the student of the Christian/Mormon debate.
so, in sum, i give 'er 5 stars because the book is absolutely and completely saturated in the relevant resources, and it takes the Mormon claim head on. sharp logic (rather than the flabby argumentation of many apologists) is used, and throughout, a witty and vibrant overtone is felt. with jp holding in print, the future of Christian apologetics just got brighter, and the defense of Mormonism just got harder.
take care and God bless.

This book by James Patrick Holding is a cut above the anti-Mormon fare, and Holding deserves kudos for writing in a very respectful style, and, furthermore, not engaging in the typical straw-man arguments offered against "Mormonism," such as the bogus claim that Latter-day Saints believe in legalism, instead hitting the nail on the head by claiming that Latter-day Saint soteriology reflects covenantal nomism.

Notwithstanding, I feel that this text does have a number of flaws contained therein. For instance, his discussion of John 3:3-5 and baptismal regeneration is just one example. Early Christians such as Justin Martyr all understood this pericope as conducive to baptismal regeneration.

Furthermore, as for Acts 2:38, the Greek preposition "eis," whenever followed by a noun in the accusative case (which occurs in this instance) means "into." Thus, contra Holding and his other co-religionists who claim the contrary, Acts 2:38 means that one is baptised *into* a remission of their sins, conducive to LDS belief in baptismal regeneration.

I welcome sincere feedback at Robert.S.Boylan@nuim.ie

Review of James Patrick Holding. The Mormon Defenders: How Latter-day Saint Apologists Misinterpret the Bible. Self-published, 2001. 160 pp. $8.99.

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

Years ago and long before recycling was a word most people would recognize, Hugh W. Nibley likened the anti-Mormon enterprise to selling old clothes from a shiny new pushcart. Thus, while the Bible tells us there is "no new thing under the sun," certainly some new twists in some of the old approaches turn up. The back cover of The Mormon Defenders: How Latter-day Saint Apologists Misinterpret the Bible features the following recommendation:

As a former fifth-generation member of the LDS Church, I enthusiastically recommend The Mormon Defenders as an able, insightful, and engaging defense of truly biblical Christianity.--Kevin James Bywater

It comes as a mild surprise to find that Mr. Bywater has written the foreword from which this statement has been excerpted (p. 6). It seems unusual to me for a book's recommendation to be quoted directly from the book itself.

A further self-recommendation is found in the author's introduction, which is titled, "Aggressive Apologetics: The Growing Mormon Mission." "Holding"1 takes up the theme introduced by Mosser and Owen's essay on the need for better quality evangelical apologetics2 and promises to deliver the goods in the form of "top-notch Biblical scholarship" (p. 10). This level of self-certification makes no concessions to false modesty. Whatever the actual quality of the scholarship here, the author certainly thinks it is formidable.

This book is, in part, another response to Blomberg and Robinson's How Wide the Divide?3--a book that seemingly continues to disturb those who have trouble accepting the proposition that individuals can believe differently and still be Christians. Holding attempts to widen the divide by attacking on seven fronts: divine embodiment, trinitarianism, premortal existence, baptism for the dead, vicarious ordinances in general, the role of works in salvation, and exaltation. Part of Holding's shiny new pushcart is found in the manner of presentation. The book has a distinct apologetic handbook feel, with the key points being reiterated in summary form at the end of each chapter. This provides the reader with a useful way to survey quickly what Holding thinks he has proven in those chapters.

In the foreword, Bywater claims that the book makes it clear that "Mormonism is not biblical" (p. 6). What neither he nor Holding spells out is what they mean by "biblical." The hermeneutic approach appears to shift as the author moves from subject to subject; the only overriding principle appears to be a search for whatever readings provide the most useful argument against Latter-day Saint beliefs and truth claims. Thus, in his attempt to support the nonscriptural notion of an ontological trinity, he builds up what he calls an "interpretive template" based on a mixture of canonical, deuterocanonical, and noncanonical Wisdom literature (pp. 36-40), which he then uses to control the biblical passages he chooses to examine. Then, having relied on these sources to teach Latter-day Saints how to read the Bible, he subsequently chides Latter-day Saint apologists for citing the same sources.

Holding then shifts his ground when dealing with the subject of baptism for the dead. Here the author frankly rejects what he admits is the "majority view" of 1 Corinthians 15:29 (namely, that it describes a proxy baptism on behalf of the unbaptized dead) by appealing to an argument from silence and to pagan customs--in other words, he bases his argument entirely on nonbiblical grounds. In place of this view, Holding asserts the following:

Therefore, we argue that the majority interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29 is off the mark. A more reasonable thesis is that the practice was devoid of theological meaning and thus not requiring Paul's explicit condemnation, or else, that we are misunderstanding the passage completely. (p. 70)

Either the passage doesn't mean anything, or we don't understand it--but whatever the case, its meaning must be sacrificed. What isn't biblical?

In contrast to this approach, Holding becomes a staunch and loyal enthusiast for majority opinion or scholarship as soon as it suits his purposes. In response to the great commission in Mark 16:15-16 ("And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned"), he argues that "the reader may be surprised to see this verse cited by LDS apologists, knowing that it is almost universally declared to be not part of the original Gospel of Mark" (p. 110). Just exactly why the fashions of scholarship should determine which passages of scripture form part of the faith of the Latter-day Saints is not clear, but Holding does not even attempt to address the real issue regarding the authenticity and authority of that passage; the actual question has to do not with Mark's authorship but rather with whether Jesus actually made the statement. Matthew 28:19-20 would seem to suggest that he did say it or at least something very much like it.

Quite apart from these kinds of problems, Holding preempts half the discussion of the faith of Latter-day Saints as a form of biblical Christianity by repeatedly assuming that Mormon and Christian are distinct categories. Note that he does not attempt to argue this but simply assumes it. This he does frequently and consistently, as in the following examples:

* "A fundamental point of contention between Mormonism and Christianity . . ." (p. 11).
* "Perhaps the most obscure issue upon which Christians and Mormons disagree . . ." (p. 35).
* "The difference between Mormon and Christian belief on the nature . . ." (p. 51).
* "If one verse could be nominated to represent the different ways in which Mormonism and Christianity approach the Bible . . ." (p. 63).

These quotations are a sampling of an assumption that is not developed but simply reiterated throughout the book. Holding cannot claim to be ignorant of the relevant literature since he refers to it,4 yet he fails entirely to interact with it. Is this his idea of "top-notch scholarship"?

A detailed critique of his arguments would run to many pages and would be tedious. What is worthy of note is that the real nuts-and-bolts content of this book is substantially the same as most of the doctrinal anti-Mormon books produced by evangelical Protestants. The approach is always the same: since the Bible says what "we" (i.e., the evangelicals) think it means, and since "they" (i.e., anyone else) think it means something different, it follows that "they" are not biblical. Holding has at least made an effort to justify this assumption with something resembling a structured argument, but that argument turns out, upon inspection, to be fatally flawed by its tendentiousness.

Where this book really does improve on some of those of its predecessors is in its tone. It neither bristles with hostility, as most earlier productions do, nor drips with insincere, condescending friendliness, as some of the more recent efforts do. Apart from one lapse in Bywater's foreword, I saw none of the usual accusations of "dishonesty" that conservative Protestant anti-Mormons tend to fling at Latter-day Saints for failing to describe our own faith in terms amenable to the hostile caricatures our opponents have fashioned and prefer. His approach is businesslike and his tone scholarly. Nonetheless, his agenda is clear from the title he has chosen. For defenders do not contend against other defenders; attackers do. And since Holding's book purports to "contend with The Mormon Defenders" (back cover), its single purpose appears to be to attack.

Holding also unfortunately fails to define crucial terms, such as biblical, Christian, and Mormon. Perhaps he felt it necessary to avoid such definitions since they might raise questions that would undermine his entire enterprise. He shifts his ground from chapter to chapter and from topic to topic as he keeps his focus on whatever angle of attack seems most profitable at the time. He relies heavily on such fallacies as the argument from silence, particularly when he insists that the many biblical accounts of divine appearances in human form do not indicate that God might not take some other form when no one is looking (pp. 15-16) or that Jesus might not simply be dissolving his body when he does not need to put in an earthly appearance (pp. 22-23). Holding thus fails to accomplish his stated task. "Top-notch biblical scholarship" from our evangelical Protestant brothers and sisters may someday be brought to bear on Latter-day Saint truth claims, but it has not been accomplished in this book.

Notes

1. I have reason to believe that James Patrick Holding is a pseudonym for Robert Turkel.
2. See Carl Mosser and Paul Owen, "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" Trinity Journal, n.s., 19/2 (1998): 179-205.
3. Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1997). While both evangelicals and Latter-day Saints can and do take issue with some of the book's contents, the continuing dismay in anti-Mormon circles seems to arise from the mere fact of the book's existence.
4. See, for instance, p. 29 n. 69, which refers to Stephen E. Robinson's Are Mormons Christian? (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991).