Home
About Us
Search Library
Library Index
Whats New
Links
Training
Statement of Faith
About Us
Admin Login
Believersweb Header

Mormon vs. Orthodox Christianity's view of Hell


Written by: White, James    Posted on: 04/29/2003

Category: Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

Source: CCN

Ä Area: Mormon ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ   Msg#: 11                                          Date: 08 Jun 93  14:17:45   From: James White                                      To: All                                            Subj: Article Review #1 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ                 A Reply to Elden Watson's Review of

  "Hugh Nibley, the Universal Apostasy, and the Gates of Hades"

            as it appeared in the Spring, 1993 issue of

                          Pros Apologian

        It seems some people take things personally, especially when one's heros or idols are under discussion.  Right now in Phoenix, for example, on the eve of the beginning of the NBA Finals, it would not be good to speak out against Charles Barkley, Kevin Johnson, or the Phoenix Suns in general.  Even folks in my own tradition, the Reformed, sometimes lose their cool when someone attacks, normally out of ignorance, John Calvin, or Jonathan Edwards.  Such is the human nature.

        We can see this quite clearly in the review of my article refuting Dr. Hugh Nibley's comments on Matthew 16.19 that was posted on the National Mormon Echo by Elden Watson.  It seems Mr. Watson has an inordinately high regard for the redoubtable Dr. Nibley, and his review of my article seems based more upon indignation that anyone would dare disagree with Nibley as it is upon any factual evidence.  Mr. Watson's normally clear thinking has been severely muddled by this emotional attachment to Dr. Nibley, as we shall see.

        Before getting to the review itself, I feel it is *vitally* important to remind the reader of what the original article was about.  It was not about the LDS doctrine that there was a *universal* apostasy in the Christian Church, though it mentions that as part of its background.  It was not about the subject of the priesthood, though again, it mentions this in providing background for the reader.  It was about one thing: Hugh Nibley's comments on Matthew 16.19, specifically regarding the genitive "autes" that functions as the direct object of the Greek verb "katischuo," i.e., "the gates of hades will not overcome (katischuo) it (autes)."  That is what the article was about.  That was its thrust.  I alleged that Dr. Nibley was simply in error to syntax the genitive autes as a partitive genitive, and demonstrated that the proper syntactical identification would be the genitive of direct object.  I supported this from scholarly sources.  For Mr. Watson's review to be relevant, it would have to provide argumentation against the main point of the article.  As anyone can see by reading the review, it utterly fails to do that very thing, preferring instead to attack anything and everything *around* the central thesis, while leaving the true error of Dr. Nibley unrefuted.

        Mr. Watson seemingly felt it was necessary to "take the gloves off" so to speak in his review.  He was none to kind in many of his remarks, preferring, it seems, the ad hominem method of argumentation to a scholarly one.  It is possible, of course, that since Mr. Watson has no graduate training in Greek (to my knowledge), he had to resort to this argumentation, as he is unequipped to engage the finer points of the argument.  Sadly, this inability shows up often in his review, normally couched in an attack upon *my* abilities at things that he himself has not studied.

        One final thing before we begin.  There are many ways of defending a lost position.  Our current political administration in Washington is very good at this very thing.  One means is to fill pages and pages with written text, citations, etc., none of which is actually relevant to the question at hand.  Indeed, Dr. Salmon put it quite well in his book, _The Infallibility of the Church_:

        It is a common rhetorical artifice with a man who has to         commend a false conclusion deduced from a syllogism of which         one premiss is true, and the other false, to spend an         immensity of time in proving the premise which nobody denies.         If he devotes a sufficient amount of argument and declamation         to this topic, the chances are that his hearers will never         ask for the proof of the other premiss (p. 63).

Such a mechanism is, I honestly feel, responsible for the immense amount of writing that has issued from Hugh Nibley's pen regarding the Book of Abraham, that still leaves the reader, if he survived the labyrinth of rabbit-trails created by Nibley's books, to ask, "But, did Joseph translate the papyri correctly?"  It is sufficient for many to simply know that "Dr. Nibley addressed that in a book...I didn't understand it at all...but as long as he wrote on it, there must be an answer to the question."  Such use of scholarship is certainly not limited to the LDS Church, but it is offensive wherever it might be found.  Mr. Watson, I feel, has learned well at the feet of Dr. Nibley, and has filled his review with a great deal of fluff, but tremendously little substance.  Having made such a statement, I will proceed, unlike Mr. Watson, to demonstrate my point.

        Half of Mr. Watson's review is taken up with issues *other than* the point of my article.  I hesitated even to reply to these sections, as I have found that normally the side-issues end up obscuring the main point to such an extent as to accomplish that which the reviewer wishes.  However, I knew that if I did not reply to those sections, I would be accused of ducking substantive criticisms, so I shall do that very thing.  However, rather than replying to Mr. Watson's posts in consecutive order, I will instead bring the main issues back to the fore, and reply to them first, and then "wrap up" the later accusations and charges.  In fact, I wish to begin with a very pleasant surprise, that being Dr. Nibley's short note to Mr. Watson.



Ä Area: Mormon ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ   Msg#: 12                                          Date: 08 Jun 93  15:18:45   From: James White                                      To: All                                            Subj: Article Review #2 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ                       The Letter from Dr. Nibley

EW> When this topic first arose, I wrote to Dr. Nibley and asked EW> whether he felt the translation of autes in Mt 16:18 as "hers" in the EW> partative genitive was a viable interpretation, or whether he could EW> have made an error.  I received the following reply:

I am very thankful that Mr. Watson wrote to Dr. Nibley, as I do not have any idea if I would have been able to get as quick a response, and I certainly doubt it would have been as revealing!  Here is the text of the letter:

    Dear Brother Watson,     When ministers start making Greek the argument, it is time to     adjourn.  I have always found their training to be extremely     superficial, usually applying to one book only in the most massive     of ancient literatures, and read with a translation and dictionary     at the student's elbow.  There is no scarcity of instances in     which the genitive is used in the same sense given in Matthew     16:18.  _Katechousi_, used with gates cannot possibly mean     anything but "hold back."  Hold back what?  Again the object     cannot possibly be anything but an accusative.  Yet for some     strange reason here in all manuscripts, it is in the genitive or     possessive.  Why?  Smythe's Grammar, Sects. 1341, 1345, 1352 gives     a number of examples in which a genitive is so used as an object     to indicate things belonging to a larger category or body.     Is there anything more fantastic than pinning one's salvation     on pedantic interpretations of an ancient language which has     always given rise to endless hair-splitting and controversy?     Yours truly,

    (Signed)  Hugh Nibley

Anyone who has read much of Dr. Nibley's books surely recognizes the inimitable style found here as well.  Dr. Nibley surely views himself highly, that is for certain, and his superiority comes across clearly in the words he writes.  Let's look closely at what he says:

    When ministers start making Greek the argument, it is time to     adjourn.  I have always found their training to be extremely     superficial, usually applying to one book only in the most massive     of ancient literatures, and read with a translation and dictionary     at the student's elbow.

One is very tempted to comment upon why Dr. Nibley would have such a pedantic view of Christian ministers, but such topics are not for our present review.  Suffice it to say that obviously Mr. Watson provided Dr. Nibley with more than just a question, but also the background of the question as well (how else would he have known a "minister" had provided the challenge?).  We recognize that Dr. Nibley does not feel that anyone outside of Zion is nearly as capable as himself (surely that is what the above suggests to me), but I would like to suggest that it would be far better to let the facts speak for themselves. If it is found that Dr. Nibley can defend his position, that will speak well for his scholarship.  If we find him avoiding the duty of defending his position, we can decide that his comments are without merit.

    There is no scarcity of instances in which the genitive is used in     the same sense given in Matthew 16:18.

As I pointed out, when faced with a difficulty, affirm that about which there is no doubt.  The issue is not "can the genitive be used in a partitive sense?"  No one has denied such a statement.  The question is, "Is `autes' at Matthew 16.19 functioning as a partitive?"

    _Katechousi_, used with gates cannot possibly mean anything     but "hold back."

I believe it is VERY important to note this statement on Nibley's part.  Unlike Mr. Watson's far less strident statements in his review, Nibley is straightforward in asserting that "katechousi" "cannot possibly mean anything but `hold back.'"  Even Mr. Watson noted that when the term is used intransitively it means "be strong, powerful, gain the ascendancy," and that "when used with the object in the genitive, the meaning shifts slightly to "win a victory over." Mr. Watson was commenting on the definition in Bauer.  Yet, here Dr. Nibley states that it CANNOT POSSIBLY MEAN ANYTHING BUT HOLD BACK. Yet, this is obviously untrue, as all lexical sources show.  Thayer's (p. 341) does not support Nibley, nor does Bauer.  Moulton gives "prevail, gain mastery over" (p. 338).  Abbott-Smith gives "to overpower, prevail against, prevail" (p. 241).  The new Louw-Nida lexicon says:

        to prevail over something or some person so as to be able to         defeat, with the implication that the successful participant         has greater strength -- `to defeat, to prevail over'...`on         this rock I will build my church and not even death will be         able to defeat it' Mt 16.18 (p. 501).



Ä Area: Mormon ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ   Msg#: 13                                          Date: 08 Jun 93  15:18:53   From: James White                                      To: All                                            Subj: Article Review #3 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Why does Nibley assert that it MUST mean "hold back"?  Because his entire interpretation is based upon it, that's why.  He is ignoring, for theological, not linguistic or textual reasons, the fact that "gates of hades" is not referring to a particular place, or even the entrance and exit of hades itself.  Mr. Watson also ignores a large part of the scholarly material on this subject as well, despite the fact that he has often cited from Kittel's TDNT, and yet it is the TDNT that does such a good job summarizing the information on this very topic!  But I am getting ahead of myself, as I shall demonstrate this fully when replying to Mr. Watson's specific charges.

    Hold back what?  Again the object cannot possibly be anything but     an accusative.  Yet for some strange reason here in all manuscripts,     it is in the genitive or possessive.  Why?

We here again see how much error can be created by producing an interpretation, and then forcing that interpretation upon the text! First he begins by insisting that the term must mean "hold back," when the lexical sources indicate that it means to "overcome" or "prevail against."  And why does it mean this?  Because of the use of the genitive direct object!  Rather than being taught by the text, Dr. Nibley has a goal, and is now working through the text backwards to arrive at his goal!  By ignoring the use of the genitive with "katischuo," and insisting upon another meaning for the word, he now goes back to ask why "autes" is in the genitive.  And his answer?

    Smythe's Grammar, Sects. 1341, 1345, 1352 gives     a number of examples in which a genitive is so used as an object     to indicate things belonging to a larger category or body.

Yes, so?  Again, by providing a statement that no one has denied, Dr. Nibley thinks to have answered the question.  Yet, it is transparently obvious that he has not answered anything at all!  Of course the genitive can be used as an object to indicate things belonging to a larger category or body.  That is not the issue!  Does Smythe's Grammar list Matthew 16.19 as an example of this?  Does it address the use of "katischuo" with the genitive of direct object? Dr. Nibley does not say.

I honestly feel that Dr. Nibley's response is a tacit admission of his own unwillingness to admit error.  Nowhere in this material does he provide a single piece of information that is supportive of his thesis!  He does not address the fact that "katischuo" can take its object in the genitive, and in fact regularly does.  He does not support his unwarranted assertion that the term MUST mean "hold back" rather than "overcome" as the sources indicate when used with the genitive.  He does not support his identification of "autes" as a partitive by merely mentioning that partitives exist--everyone knows that.  Such argumentation is indicative of a person who is not able to substantiate a long leap in exegesis, which is exactly what we have in his comments on Matthew 16.19.

    Is there anything more fantastic than pinning one's salvation     on pedantic interpretations of an ancient language which has     always given rise to endless hair-splitting and controversy?

Such a question is more properly addressed to he who pins his salvation upon the truthfulness of one Joseph Smith Jr., and *his* "pedantic interpretations."

With Dr. Nibley's remarks clear in our thinking, let us go to Mr. Watson's actual comments on Matthew 16.19 and my refutation of Nibley's error.

EW> As I see it, and as I believe Dr. Nibley intended, the proper EW> interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is that the trailing "it" would be EW> more properly translated "hers," and refers to a portion of the members EW> of the church of Christ.  They are hers, because as members of the EW> church, they belong to her (the church).  Those referenced here EW> constitute only a portion of the members of the church of Christ EW> because not all of the members of the church of Christ are in Hades.

As we shall see later, NONE of the Church of Christ is in hades, nor is that the point of the discussion at all.  But Mr. Watson's interpretation of Nibley is correct, and is in fact what I myself had indicated in my article.

EW> In order to properly understand the connotation, it must be realized EW> that gates are not an offensive weapon.  A fierce warrior does not ride EW> out on a white horse brandishing a gate and proceed to hit someone over EW> the head with it.

And just here enters the problem, both for Nibley as well as Watson. By taking "gates of hades" as literally referring to gates, he misses the entire point, a point made in one of his own favorite sources, the TDNT:

        With this concept "pulai hadou" is a pars-pro-toto term...for         the ungodly powers of the underworld which assail the rock.         This interpretation is supported by the linguistic         consideration that "katischuein" when followed by a genitive         is always active ("to vanquish") in Jewish Greek.  Hence the         "pulai hadou" are the agressors.

The gates of hades, then, refer to the powers of death itself.  This is very consistent with Biblical usage.  Note Isaiah 38:10:

Is 38.10 I said, "In the prime of my life must I go through the gates of death (pulais hadou) and be robbed of the rest of my years?"



Ä Area: Mormon ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ   Msg#: 14                                          Date: 08 Jun 93  15:20:02   From: James White                                      To: All                                            Subj: Article Review #4 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

Extra-Biblical Jewish sources use the term in the same way, as Jeremias noted in TDNT above.  Calvin correctly said:

        The pronoun it (autes) may refer either to faith or to the         Church; but the latter meaning is more appropriate.  Against         all the power of Satan the firmness of the Church will prove         to be invincible, because the truth of God, on which the         faith of the Church rests, will ever remain unshaken.  And         to this statement corrsponds that saying of John, "This is         the victory which overcometh the world, your faith" (1 John         v.4).  It is a promise which eminently deserves our         observation, that all who are united to Christ, and         acknowledge him to be Christ and Mediator, will remain to the         end safe from all danger; for what is said of the body of the         Church belongs to each of its members, since they are one in         Christ.  Yet this passage also instructs us, that so long as         the Church shall continue to be a pilgrim on the earth, she         will never enjoy rest, but will be exposed to many attacks;         for, when it is declared that Satan will not conquer, this         implies that he will be her constant enemy.  While,         therefore, we rely on this promise of Christ, feel ourselves         at liberty to boast against Satan, and already triumph by         faith over all his forces; let us learn, on the other hand,         that this promise is, as it were, the sound of a trumpet,         calling us to be always ready and prepared for battle.  By         the word gates ("pulai") is unquestionably meant every kind         of power and of weapons of war.

D.A. Carson noted:

        But "gates of Hades" or very similar expressions are found in         canonical Jewish literature...and pagan literature..., and         seem to refer to death and dying.  Hence RSV: "The powers of         death shall not prevail against it."  Because the church is         the assembly of people Jesus Messiah is building, it cannot         die.

The position taken by Nibley and Watson falls upon the simple fact of the meaning of katischuo when taking its object in the genitive.  It does not simply mean "hold back" as Nibley declares, and the "gates of hades" are in fact the aggressors, for they represent the very powers of death itself, which shall not overcome the Church founded by the Lord Jesus Christ, Hugh Nibly, Joseph Smith, or Elden Watson, not withstanding.

EW> Gates are a defensive weapon, and are utilized solely EW> to either keep someone or something in a place, or to keep someone or EW> something out of a place.  Since the place to which we are referring is EW> Hades, I shall presume at this point that the someone or something is EW> inside of Hades, wanting to get out.  (It seems irresponsible to EW> consider the case in which someone or something is outside of Hades EW> wanting to get in.)  In Dr. Nibley's interpretation of Mt 16:18 then, EW> some of the members of the church of Christ are in Hades, and want to EW> get out, but the gates of Hades oppose them and try to keep them in. EW> Christ declares that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against hers, EW> and hence those individuals shall be freed from Hades.  In the original EW> context, Dr. Nibley is relating this to those who become members of the EW> church while they are in Hades, by vicarious baptism.

That is indeed Nibley's position.  It is a position fraught with problems, as we have seen.

EW> One additional point deserves consideration in preparation for what EW> follows.  As we have seen above, something is in Hades and wants to EW> get out.

Please note that Mr. Watson says, "As we have seen above."  Actually, all we saw "above" was his assertion, "I shall presume at this point that the someone or something is inside of Hades, wanting to get out."  Mr. Watson takes an unsupported presumption, and then uses this as the basis of his following comments.

EW> If the gates of Hades were to prevail, then that something EW> would not be able to pass by the gates, and would be consigned to EW> remain in Hades.  Christ has decreed that the gates of hades will not EW> prevail, but that whatever it is that is in Hades will be able to EW> prevail against the gates and extricate itself.

We note again that there is nothing in the text whatsoever that speaks of people in Hades, wishes or desires to go in or out, or extrications thereof.  This is pure eisogesis, based upon presumption, depending upon rejection of clear grammatical and lexical information.

EW> The something that is EW> in Hades wanting to get out is the "it" of Matthew 16:18.  According to EW> Mr. White's interpretation, it is the church itself that is in Hades EW> and wants to get out.

< chuckle >  It will be instructive to read Mr. Watson accusing *me* of misrepresenting others, when he can come up with such a fanciful statement as this!  The Church is not in Hades, and I have certainly never given the slightest indication that this was my position.



Ä Area: Mormon ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ   Msg#: 15                                          Date: 08 Jun 93  15:28:08   From: James White                                      To: All                                            Subj: Article Review #5 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

EW> In Dr. Nibley's interpretation, it is some of EW> the members of the church who are in Hades and want to get out.  Of the EW> two interpretations, I prefer that of Dr. Nibley, and would ask Mr. EW> White how it is that the church finds itself in Hades in the first EW> place.

Since the passage is not discussing where anyone is, but is instead asserting that the gates of hades will not *overcome* the Church, that is, defeat the Church, Mr. Watson's question is irrelevant, and his confusion, based upon his seeming unquestioning following of Dr. Nibley, is understandable.  That Mr. Watson is clearly unfamiliar with the interpretive history of this passage, and, it seems, has not availed himself of the ready information on this topic, can be seen from reading the following section from my article, and Mr. Watson's reply:

>      It must first be noted that Nibley's interpretation of the >  passage is not to be found in any stream of scholarly >  interpretation, whether Protestant, or Catholic.  We are not aware >  of a single scholar who attempts to say that the final phrase of >  Matthew 16:18 is referring to anything other than the Church; that >  is, that the "it" found in the phrase does not refer back to the >  term "church" mentioned immediately before.  If Nibley is correct, >  it is amazing that exegetes over the centuries have missed what >  only he has discovered. >      Mormons are, by and large, in awe of Hugh Nibley's linguistic >  abilities.  When Dr. Nibley says that the term "it" in Matthew >  16:18 is "in the partitive genitive," that _must_ be the case. >  Yet, is it?  And why would literally thousands of scholars of the >  Greek language have missed such a simple thing, leaving Dr. Nibley >  to discover it?  And what of all those translations of the Bible >  that do not catch this, seemingly, basic thing?

EW> It is indeed a little surprising that commentators have not EW> recognized that the standard interpretation actually requires that the EW> church of Christ be in hell.

I must conclude, then, that Mr. Watson is fully unaware of what the "standard interpretation" is, for him to make such a statement!  Did it not occur to him that maybe Christians over the years *have* given serious consideration to this passage, and hence that it is rather unlikely that one man in Utah, whose expertise seems to be historical, rather than linguistic, would come up with a new and startling viewpoint, unthought of before, to answer such an obvious problem as the Church being in hades?

Now, Mr. Watson then attempts to create a problem that does not exist.  In reviewing Nibley's statements, I noted that he himself said,

>      Moreover, the thing which is held back, is not >      the church, for the object is not in the accusative but in >      the partitive genitive: it is "hers," part of her, that >      which belongs to her, that the gates will not be able to >      contain.

Mr. Watson replied:

EW> First, Dr. Nibley nowhere says that the word "it" cannot refer to EW> the church.  It is Mr. White who makes the unwarranted claim that Dr. EW> Nibley has said that "it" *cannot* be referring to the church.  Dr. EW> Nibley only asserts that it does not.

I must honestly say that this is double-talk.  Nibley is not sitting down in an ecumenical meeting with others and saying "this MIGHT be a way to understand it."  Indeed, his letter to Mr. Watson made it plain that there was NO WAY to understand katischuo as meaning anything other than "hold back," and hence it is hardly "Niblian" to be simply *suggesting* an "alternative" understanding.  He says that that which is held back is not the church "for the object is not in the accusative but in the partitive genitive."  I think saying what I did is perfectly understandable, and proper, in the context of Nibley's own statements.

EW> The genitive is the case of EW> possession, or description.  There are a lot of ways in which things EW> can be described, and hence there are a lot of reasons for which the EW> genitive may be used. Understanding the reason for the use of the EW> genitive case in particular situations can strongly influence specifics EW> of a translation.  Scholars frequently discuss different possible EW> meanings of a passage depending upon why the genitive was used. EW> Sometimes the distinction in meaning is minimal, and sometimes it is EW> significant.

This is another example of majoring on what is not at issue.  No one has denied the function of the genitive.  I have challenged Nibley's use of the genitive, and his identification of "autes" as a partitive.



Ä Area: Mormon ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ   Msg#: 16                                          Date: 08 Jun 93  15:45:12   From: James White                                      To: All                                            Subj: Article Review #6 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

EW> In this example, the Greek words do not vary, but their interpretation EW> varies depending upon the reason the genitive was used.  Mr. White EW> attempts to give the (incorrect) impression that there can only be one EW> reason for the use of the genitive in Matthew 16:18, and that Dr. EW> Nibley is wrong in offering another interpretation.

Dr. Nibley is not merely "offering another interpretation" as his letter clearly demonstrated.  I was replying to Nibley's assertion that this is a partitive genitive, and demonstrating that such is not the case, nothing more.  What Mr. Watson confuses as my attempt to give an "impression" that there can only be one reason for the use of the genitive is in reality my rebuttal of Dr. Nibley's unwarranted identification of the use of "autes."

EW> Also, it is obvious from Mr. White's comments in the above EW> paragraph that despite the simplicity of Dr. Nibley's argument, Mr. EW> White does not understand it.

I believe any semi-unbiased reader will be able to determine the accuracy of Mr. Watson's statements.

EW> This will become even more apparent in EW> his next paragraph.  Dr. Nibley is not suggesting that "church" and EW> "it" should be in the same case at all.

I believe the logical outcome of his remarks would be that *if* Jesus were indicating that the *church* is that which is not overcome by the gates of hades, that it *would* have to be in the accusative. Indeed, this is well supported by his own statement in his letter to Mr. Watson:

        Hold back what?  Again the object cannot possibly be anything         but an accusative.

Using terms like "cannot possibly be anything but" is rather clear to me.

EW> As I understand Dr. Nibley, he EW> is simply stating that in the phrase "the gates of hell shall not EW> prevail against it." the word "it" is the direct object of "prevail EW> against," and as such should normally be in the accusative case.  The EW> accusative is the case of the direct object as Mr. White has pointed EW> out above.  If one were to say "the gates of hell shall not prevail EW> against the church," the words "the church" should be placed in the EW> accusative case, simply because it is the direct object.  But in EW> Matthew 16:18, the direct object ("it") is not in the accusative, but EW> in the genitive case, which means that the author is trying to tell us EW> something different.

Or, as I pointed out, that the verb "katischuo" takes its object most often in the genitive, and hence means "overcome" rather than "hold back," all contra Nibley.

As Mr. Watson will accuse me of having "no idea" what Dr. Nibley is saying, I will produce the quotation of my own article:

>      What can be said about Dr. Nibley's comments?  First, it is >  apparent that Dr. Nibley is in error regarding how the antecedent >  of a Greek pronoun is determined. /Footnote 10/  He says that "it" >  cannot refer to "church" because there is a difference in cases, >  "church" being in the accusative, and "it" being in the genitive. >  Yet, as we saw before, pronouns agree with their antecedents in >  gender and number, _not necessarily in case_.  The term "church" >  is feminine in gender and singular in number; the term; "it" is >  feminine in gender and singular in number.  Hence, Dr. Nibley's >  case is built upon a misunderstanding of a rule that is introduced >  in the first semester of a beginning Greek course.  The "it" of >  the final clause can indeed refer to "church" as all translations >  and commentaries indicate. > >  /Footnote 10/  Given that Dr. Nibley is not extremely clear at >  this point, we note the possibility that he is simply asserting >  that [autos] is functioning in a different syntactical arrangement >  rather than making an error about how to identify the antecedent. >  However, Dr. Nibley's specific comments seem to indicate >  otherwise.

EW> The more Mr. White discusses Dr. Nibley's interpretation, the more EW> clear it becomes that he has no idea what Dr. Nibley is saying.  He EW> therefore makes a series of errors relating to Dr. Nibley's argument. EW> First: Dr. Nibley is not in error regarding how the antecedent of a EW> Greek pronoun is determined, he even utilizes the fact that "it" EW> refers indirectly to the church (i.e. members of the church).

Please note the fact that while Dr. Nibley's comments are not clear, I felt it fair to provide footnote 10, reproduced up above, that admits the fact that Nibley *might* be indicating something other than the idea that "autes" cannot be referring back to "ekklesia." However, I still believe that Dr. Nibley was indicating that "ekklesia" is NOT the antecedent of "autes," and that part of his argument was, at the time, that there is a case difference, a difference that is not relevant to the determination of the antecedent.



Ä Area: Mormon ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ   Msg#: 17                                          Date: 08 Jun 93  16:05:03   From: James White                                      To: All                                            Subj: Article Review #7 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

EW> Second:  Dr. Nibley nowhere says that "it" cannot refer to the EW> church.  That is totally Mr. White's assertion.  Dr. Nibley states EW> that "it" relates indirectly to the church rather than directly.

Actually, since Mr. Watson wishes to be so specific, Dr. Nibley nowhere states that it refers "indirectly" to the church, either.

EW> Third:  Dr. Nibley's case is not based on a misunderstanding of any EW> Greek rule, rather Mr. White's comment is based on a complete EW> misunderstanding of Dr. Nibley' case.

Again, the semi-impartial reader will be able to determine if this is the case or not.

>      Direct object.--Some verbs--those, for example, which >      express sensation or perception ([akouo], hear; [geuomai], >      taste; [aptomai], touch; etc); emotion and concern >      ([splaggnizomai], pity; [epithumeo], desire; [kataphroneo], >      despise; etc); ruling ([archo], rule; [kurieuo], be master >      of, etc.); and so on--have a meaning which is related to >      the root idea of the genitive case.  Such verbs may take >      their direct object in the genitive rather than the >      accusative case.  Example:  [tes _ekklisias_ tou theou >      kataphroveite]; "Do you despise the church of God?" (1Cor. >      11:22). /Footnote 13/ > >  /Footnote 13/  Ibid., p. 36.

EW> For a proper understanding of the subject at hand it should be EW> pointed out here that all transitive Greek verbs, and many EW> intransitive Greek verbs can and do take a direct object in the EW> accusative.  Some verbs, such as the ones Mr. White has listed above, EW> can also be used with the genitive, in which case the meaning is EW> somewhat modified.  Mr. White's explanation would tend to make one EW> believe that such a verb must take a genitive object, which is EW> incorrect.

Please note that Mr. Watson's "feelings" about what my explanation would "tend" to make one believe are irrelevant to the accuracy of said explanations, which were taken from recognized scholarly sources.

Next Mr. Watson attempts to venture into the field of syntactical constructions of a language that, to my knowledge, he has not studied in a professional setting.  Given that he will make comments based upon my own, I again provide the relevant portion of my article:

>      With this information at hand, can any conclusions be drawn >  concerning Dr. Nibley's claim that we are working with a partitive >  genitive in Matthew 16:18?  Most certainly.  First, we note that >  the passage bears none of the marks of a partitive genitive. >  There is no idea of "it" being the whole of which some assumed >  "thing" or "things" is a part. /Footnote 14/  The "it" obviously >  referring back to the Church, as we have already seen.  Why, then, >  is the term "it" in the genitive? > >  /Footnote 14/ Remember nibley's attempted translation as "_part_ >  of her" and "_that which_ belongs to her."  There is no "_that >  which_" in the text.

EW> If we now compare Dr. Nibley's interpretation with Mr. White's EW> comments in the above paragraph, we find that the passage in question EW> does in fact bear all of the marks of the partitive genitive.

I am truly forced to "call Mr. Watson's hand," and ask quite honestly how we can take seriously his assertions, when we have no reason to believe that he is trained to recognize the signs of a partitive genitive?  Indeed, this portion of my article was discussed at length with a professor of New Testament whose field of specialty is New Testament Greek itself.  This was his primary criticism of Nibley's statement: that there is nothing in the passage that would lead one to syntax "autes" as a partitive genitive; that is, the "signs" of the partitive are missing.  And now Mr. Watson would like to tell us that they are there, when I personally have no reason to believe that he knows what to look for in the first place!

EW> "Hers" EW> is the whole membership of the church, of which those being opposed by EW> the gates of Hades are a part.

Excuse me?  Where is "hers" in the text?  Where is "the whole membership of the church" in the text?  Where is a membership mentioned at all?  This is not exegesis and scholarly syntactical study, this is amateur theologizing at its best.  If the "it" is a partitive genitive, there must be some way of seeing this from the text itself.  Where is the relative pronoun "that which" in the text? It is not there.  How can we assume it?  We can't.  There is no reason to.  Nothing in the text *forces* us to.  Hence, as I said, there are no signs of a partitive genitive, and Mr. Watson's comments only demonstrate the truth of the old saying, especially when applied to Greek, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."



Ä Area: Mormon ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ   Msg#: 18                                          Date: 08 Jun 93  16:12:54   From: James White                                      To: All                                            Subj: Article Review #8 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

EW> As for Mr. White's footnote, EW> commenting that there is no "_that which_" in the text, it hardly needs EW> comment. The word "hers" means, in English, "that which belongs to EW> her."  The fact that Mr. White finds nothing in the Greek text which EW> can be translated "that which" demonstrates graphically that Mr. White EW> is so engrossed in trapping Dr. Nibly in an error that he has neglected EW> to consider the meaning of the very words he is translating.

An amazing statement, but one that is utterly without merit.  Mr. Watson has failed to demonstrate any scholarship in this review, and this is one of the plainest examples.  "Autes" does not mean "hers" in the English sense of "that which belongs to her."  This simple error, made often by beginning students of languages, is glaring, especially since Mr. Watson placed it in the context of ad hominem. For "autes" to be translated as a possessive is the entire point: the serious exegete must have a *reason* for such a translation, and the lack of that reason is what is being discussed.  Mr. Watson's inability to follow the discussion does not amount to an error on my part.  "Autes" is the object of "katischuo."  "Katischuo" takes its object in the genitive, and hence means "overcome."  There is no reason to take "autes" as a possessive.

>      It seems that Dr. Nibley simply did not do his homework in >  identifying this as a partitive genitive.  Why do we say this? >  A quick glance at any decent lexicon of the Greek language would >  have provided him with the answer to the question, "What is the >  syntactical function of [autes] at Matthew 16:18?"  The verb >  (which Nibley specifically mentioned), [katischuo] (katischuo) >  is the key to the problem.  The following is the definition >  provided by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker: > >      [katischuo] ... 1. abs _be dominant, prevail_ (Polyb. 11, >      13, 3; Ex 17:11; En. 104,6) [katischuon ai phonai auton] >      _their voices prevailed Lk 23:23 (Antig. Car. 152 >      [katischuken a pheme]).  W. inf. fol. _be able, be in a >      position_ 21:36. >      2. used w. gen _win a victory over_ (Dio Chrys. 12[13], 4 al.; >      Aelian, H.A. 5, 19; Wsd 7:30; Jer 15:18; Jos., Bell. 2, 464 >      [katischusas pleionon] = 'conqueror of a superior force'; Test. >      Reub. 4:11) [pulai adou ou katischusousin autas] (i.e., [tes >      ekklesias) Mt 16:18 (s. on [pule] 1) [pases ponarias] Hv 2,3,2, >      [k. ton ergon tou diabolou] _win the victory over the works of >      the devil_ Hm 12,6,4. /Footnote 15/ > >  /Footnote 15/  Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich, *A Greek-English Lexicon >  of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature* >  (University of Chicago Press, 1979), p. 424.

EW> Mr White is again so concerned with the grammatical and syntactical EW> functions of the Greek that he pays little attention to the meaning of EW> the sentence he is translating.

Or, as we have seen, Mr. Watson is so concerned about defending Dr. Nibley's error, that he cannot see that the meaning of the sentence cannot be separated from grammar and syntax.  The meaning of any sentence is derived from grammar and syntax, and since the grammar and syntax tells us that the passage is providing us a genitive of direct object, hence making "katischuo" translated as "overcome," Dr. Nibley's position is shown to be without foundation, and hence in error.

EW> We call attention to the fact that EW> the deleted portion of the definition above identifies katischuo as an EW> intransitive verb with the basic meaning "_be strong_, _powerful_, EW> _gain the ascendancy_".  When used with an object in the genitive, the EW> meaning shifts slightly to "win a victory over."

And I call attention to the fact that Dr. Nibley contradicts this very statement in the letter Mr. Watson provided later, though Mr. Watson allows this contradiction to pass without comment.  We are tempted to wonder if Mr. Watson believes Dr. Nibley a greater expert on lexical matters than those who produced the Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich/ Danker lexicon.

>  While the above may look like some secret code to most, to the >  scholar (which Dr. Nibley claims to be), the above is quite >  significant.  First, note that the lexicon specifically identifies >  a use of the verb _with the genitive_, and places Matthew 16:18 >  in this category.  If Dr. Nibley had taken the time to examine the >  lexical sources, he would have discovered that [katischuo] takes >  its direct object in the genitive!  And this is exactly what we >  have at Matthew 16:18:  the gates of Hades will not overcome >  ([katischuo]) it ([autes, genitive singular, referring back to >  "church").  Hence, we clearly have here the proper syntactical >  category for "it" at Matthew 16:18: genitive of direct object.

EW> Mr. White makes it sound as though katischuo must in every instance EW> take an object in the genitive, which is incorrect.

Please note the misrepresentation.  I said, "First, note that the lexicon specifically identifies A USE OF THE VERB (emphasis mine) _with the genitive_".



Ä Area: Mormon ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ   Msg#: 19                                          Date: 08 Jun 93  16:16:29   From: James White                                      To: All                                            Subj: Article Review #9 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

EW> He also makes it EW> sound as though there is only one possible interpretation of the EW> genitive, which is also incorrect.

Mr. Watson's inability to read scholarly material on the subject should not translate into my supposedly trying to make things "sound" this way or that.

EW> The proof of the translation is in EW> the meaning, and I personally find little satisfaction in a EW> translation which requires the church of Christ to be in Hades.

We note yet once again that rather than providing any linguistic rebuttal of the information presented in the article, Mr. Watson is forced to fall back upon a theological misunderstanding that is purely his own to provide a basis for rejecting the clear syntactical form of the text.  This is the mark of the untrained person venturing into ground that is unfamiliar.  This is particularly reprehensible in light of the arrogance displayed by Mr. Watson immediately following:

>      When this author first translated, and then syntaxed, this >  passage, he identified the use of [autes] as the genitive of direct >  object in opposition to Dr. Nibley's claim.  In the writing of this >  article, this identification was confirmed from the writings of the >  greatest Greek scholar America has ever produced, Dr. A. T. >  Robertson.  In his mammoth work, *A Grammar of the Greek New >  Testament in the Light of Historical Research*, under the topic of >  the genitive used with verbs, section 6, "_Verbs of Ruling_," >  /Footnote 16/ we read, > >      These verbs all have a distinct substantive-affinity like 'be >      ruler of,' etc.  See further Lu. 22:25 for [kurieo] and >      [exousiazo], Mt. 16:18 for [katischuo]. > >  Here Robertson identifies the use of [katischuo] at Matthew 16:18 >  under the heading of the genitive with verbs (i.e., genitive of >  direct object), confirming our own identification provided above.

EW> Well done Dr. Robertson.  It's certainly a good thing you agreed EW> with Mr. White and didn't try to examine any possible alternative EW> interpretations.

I seriously doubt that Mr. Watson has read even a small portion of Dr. Robertson's works.  He is speaking of things about which he knows little, and that with a *tremendous* amount of confidence.  How does Mr. Watson know that Dr. Robertson "didn't try to examine any possible alternative interpretations"?  Why does Mr. Watson have so much trouble accepting the fact that "katischuo" is used with the genitive as a direct object to refer to overcoming and prevailing?  I think the answer is simple: he has thrown in his lot with Dr. Nibley, and is dedicated to defending an error, and that to the last!

EW> Mr. White disallows alternative possibilities, even EW> when it is apparent that he has not the slightest idea what you are EW> talking about.

When one is outside of one's area of expertise, and totally without a substantive reply, always accuse the other person of being clueless. Sadly, this is all that is left to Mr. Watson.

EW> He might very likely have misquoted you and made it EW> appear that you said that your alternative interpretation is the only EW> possible interpretation; accused you of making a grammatical error on EW> something so simple that it is taught in first semester Greek classes; EW> pointed out that you had not done your homework; given you a lesson in EW> Greek grammar; and recommended that you admit your error and make EW> changes in your mammoth work on the New Testament.  You would be lucky EW> if he didn't make a few slurs (totally unrelated to the topic of EW> discussion) at your character in a footnote or two along the way.

Further "fluff" filler, and without any relevance to the fact that it seems Mr. Watson is hoping that no one noticed that he could not support Nibley's assertion from the text, or from lexical or grammatical sources.

            To conclude the central review of the debate:

Dr. Nibley erred in asserting that "autes" is a partitive genitive. It is instead the genitive of direct object, used with "katischuo," a term that we have seen from many independent scholarly sources takes a direct object in the genitive, and hence means "to overcome" or "to prevail against."

Dr. Nibley erred in asserting that "katischuo" MUST mean "hold back." The lexical sources prove this to be the case.

Dr. Nibley erred in saying that this passage, then, refers to members of the Church who are in hades, who wish to get out, and can do so only through baptism for the dead.

Mr. Watson erred in even attempting to engage a topic that requires training and scholarship that he has not yet obtained.

I shall now turn to the secondary issues that Mr. Watson raised in his review.

Ä Area: Mormon ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ   Msg#: 20                                          Date: 08 Jun 93  16:31:54   From: James White                                      To: All                                            Subj: Article Review #10 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ EW> When James White writes articles against the LDS Church, it would EW> be easier for all concerned if he would get his definitions straight.

Here begins Mr. Watson's ad hominem campaign.  As we shall see, it is 1) central to his attempt to save Dr. Nibley, and 2) without merit.

>      *The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints* claims to be >  the only true Church on earth today.  All other churches are >  apostate, and do not have the proper "authority" to do the works >  of God.  Obviously, such a belief necessitates some explanation >  of how the Christian Church ceased to exist, why, and how it was >  re-established under Joseph Smith 1700 years after it supposedly >  vanished.  Furthermore, the LDS belief requires some very heavy >  re-interpretation of key biblical texts that plainly declare the >  continuation of the Christian Church until the second coming of >  Christ.

EW> I have heard the essence of Mr. White's first sentence frequently EW> expressed among Latter-day Saints, although the intended meaning and EW> more accurate rendition is that The Church of Jesus Christ of EW> Latter-day Saints is the only true and living church upon the whole EW> earth, with which the Lord is well pleased (see D&C 1:30).

In point of fact, I had D&C 1:30 in mind when I wrote the first sentence.  I simply did not take the time to cite the passage.

EW> After that EW> point, Mr. White's introductory paragraph goes to hell in a handbasket.

Hardly, as we shall see.

EW> Since he is claiming to state what the LDS Church believes, he really EW> should use the words the way the LDS use them, or at least express the EW> LDS ideas in his own words.  To a member of the LDS Church an apostate EW> is an individual who has once received the true gospel through the EW> acceptance of its ordinances, and then later rejected and turned to EW> oppose it.  In a related sense, an apostate church is one which has EW> been organized by apostates, falsely feigning the ordinances and the EW> authority to perform them, as a counterfeit, for the purpose of EW> opposing the true church and legitimate authority.  The Church of Jesus EW> Christ of Latter-day Saints believes and teaches that there was a EW> universal apostasy, which was complete by approximately the end of the EW> third century A.D., in which all authority to perform ordinances in the EW> name of God was lost.

Which, of course, is all I was saying in my opening paragraph.  I simply wished to provide background for the non-LDS who would be reading the article, and I reject any assertion that I was purposefully, or accidentally, misrepresenting the LDS position.

EW> None of today's Christian churches claim to EW> possess apostolic authority, consequently, none of the churches which EW> are designated mainstream Christianity today are or can be called EW> apostate churches.

This statement is amazing for two reasons.  First, it is hard to believe that anyone even marginally familiar with Christian Churches could write (for public consumption no less!) the words, "None of today's Christian churches claim to possess apostolic authority."  I can only gather that Mr. Watson has not spoken with any Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or Anglicans of late!  Indeed, even other Protestant groups would claim apostolic authority via the writings of the Apostles themselves.  Seemingly Mr. Watson thinks that "apostolic authority" refers to having apostles, in which case, he might wish to take his own advice, and "use terms" as we ourselves use them.

Secondly, I am truly left to wonder as to why Mr. Watson would claim that the LDS Church does not identify modern Christian churches as "apostate."  Bruce R. McConkie said of apostasy:

        Apostasy consists in the abandonment and forsaking of these         true principles, and all those who do not believe and conform         to them are in a apostate condition, whether they are the         ones who departed from the truth or whether they inherited         their false concepts from their apostate fathers (MD, p. 43).

And Mr. Watson accuses ME of not using terms as LDS use them? Obviously my use of "apostate" was EXACTLY as used by a Mormon apostle above!  But that is not all.  Allow me to provide quotations supportive of what I said from Joseph Fielding Smith (_Doctrines of Salvation_) and the current prophet, Ezra Taft Benson:

p2 Moreover, there have been times when it has been necessary for covenants to be withdrawn, and man has been left to grope in spiritual darkness without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and without the saving grace of the ordinances and covenants of the gospel. Such was the case in Israel preceding the coming of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. The long dark day of apostasy, preceding the middle ages and continuing until the restoration of the gospel through Joseph Smith, was another benighted period of this kind.155-11

p1 WHY THE RESTORATION. The everlasting covenant had been broken; the correct understanding of gospel principles had disappeared through apostasy; the right to officiate in the ordinances of the gospel had ceased among men. It became necessary that all this might be restored, and that faith might increase among the people through an opening of the heavens and a restoration of the gospel.167-2



Ä Area: Mormon ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ   Msg#: 21                                          Date: 08 Jun 93  16:32:27   From: James White                                      To: All                                            Subj: Article Review #11 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

p4 WORK OF JOSEPH SMITH COMPARED TO REFORMERS. The fact, so conclusively proved, that there has been an apostasy, shows the necessity of a restoration of the gospel. It is a remarkable fact that Martin Luther, John Knox, John Calvin, the Wesleys, and the other reformers who attempted to correct the evils of the Catholic church, did not think of this great truth. It was left for Joseph Smith to make the wonderful discovery.

p2 CHURCH AND KINGDOM RESTORED. The Lord taught Joseph Smith and his associates that it is due to apostasy that these officers with their authority were taken away; and when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was restored, it was by divine command that apostles, high priests, seventies and elders, were again ordained and with authority sent forth to proclaim the message of salvation to the nations of the earth.240-28

p2 At various times during the history of the world the opportunity for mankind to receive the blessings of the gospel has been denied them. For instance, during the time of the apostasy, following the ministry of our Savior and his apostles down to the time of the restoration, the opportunity for men to receive the remission of their sins by baptism and partake of the other ordinances essential to exaltation was impossible. The Church with its authorized ministers was not on the earth. It is true that sim ilar conditions have existed at other and more remote periods of time.

p4 NO MODERN AUTHORITY WITHOUT RESTORATION. Following the apostasy from the doctrine and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of former-day saints, it became necessary that there be an opening of the heavens, and for the Lord to speak again, and by his own mouth and the mouth of his ancient disciples again to restore the truth which had been lost. In the apostasy, the authority to act in the name of the Lord had been taken |P88away from the earth, and as John saw in his revelation, the priesthood was ta ken back to God while the Church of Jesus Christ had been driven into the wilderness.

p2 RESTORATION IN THE MERIDIAN OF TIME. According to this assignment and the instructions given to Moses, the priests (i.e. sons of Aaron) and Levites officiated from the day of their appointment to the days of the coming of Jesus Christ. When our Savior came, he restored to the Church all that had been taken away, and once again the fulness of the priesthood with all of its blessings was given to men. As Peter said, there existed again a "chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar p eople," but this condition did not continue long before apostasy once more destroyed it all.114-39

p2 No event should have been heralded among the people with greater effectiveness and received with greater evidence of joy and satisfaction. The nations should have rejoiced and welcomed it with gladness of heart, for with it came the establishment of divine truth in the earth--the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the power of God unto salvation unto all who believe.255-51 The world had been without this gospel for many hundreds of years, ever since the great apostasy and turning away from the truth whic h had been established by the primitive Church.

p4 Then once more came a departure from the Lord, and when the time came for the appearance of the Son of God, they rejected him and crucified him, but he again established his Church with a few who were willing to follow him and sent them forth into all the world to declare his gospel. Again, following the death of his apostles, apostasy once more set in, and again the saving principles and ordinances of the gospel were changed to suit the conveniences and notions of the people. Doctrines were corrupted, authority lost, and a false order of religion took the place of the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it had been the case in former dispensations, and the people were left in spiritual darkness.266-4

P267APOSTASY FOLLOWING MERIDIAN OF TIME. It is within the power of every intelligent man to know that following the days of the ancient apostles there came a falling away, or an apostasy, from the doctrines and practices in the primitive Church. History shows that the priesthood which was organized by our Savior was corrupted, and offices were created that were unknown in the days of the apostles and which are foreign to the true Church of Jesus Christ.

P268UNIVERSAL NATURE OF APOSTASY. All the men holding the priesthood should have a thorough understanding of the development of false doctrine and the gradual change which took place, after the death of the apostles, which transformed the Church of Jesus Christ into a system as far removed from the primitive Church as are the poles of our hemispheres. Nothing by way of ordinance and very little by way of doctrine, given by revelation in the days of our Savior and during the lives of the apostles, was left remaining. . . .

p2 SOME TRUTH IN ALL CHURCHES. All churches teach some truth, whether they profess belief in Confucius, Buddha, the Greek and Roman gods, or anything else; otherwise their churches would not endure a month. The fact that they teach some truth does not make them the Church of God. There is but one Church of God.271-17



Ä Area: Mormon ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ   Msg#: 22                                          Date: 08 Jun 93  17:19:00   From: James White                                      To: All                                            Subj: Article Review #12 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

p3 DOCTRINE OF APOSTASY PROVED BY FIRST VISION. Joseph Smith declared that in the year 1820 the Lord revealed to him that all the "Christian" churches were in error, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men.283-46 The religious teachers taught that they were in the way of light and truth, notwithstanding their many conflicting creeds.

*****************************

From Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson:

p7 So the world entered that long night of apostasy, the Dark Ages. The church, no longer sanctioned by God, exercised an oppressive tyranny on the minds of men and shackled them with chains of false traditions. Truth was turned to superstition, joy to despair, and worship to ritual. (This Nation Shall Endure, pp. 115-16.)

p2 Not only by history, which is quite conclusive, but through prophecy also we have been informed definitely that there was and there would be a complete apostasy from the truth.

p6 Following the great apostasy from the principles and laws of Christ, the world became enslaved in a cloak of darkness. This long night of Christian apostasy placed an oppressive tyranny on |P109|p1 the minds of men, which were shackled by chains of false priestly tradition.

P111|p1 Joseph was to learn that Christ established the Church in former days when He was here on earth. Its members were called Saints, but because of the wickedness of men the prophets were taken away from the people and so revelation ceased, the scripture ended, and the doctrines and creeds of uninspired men prevailed. As predicted in the scriptures, there was an apostasy.

p2 Our missionaries go out into the world to proclaim that there has been an apostasy from the truth, but that through the goodness of God the heavens have again been opened and the gospel revealed unto man through Joseph Smith, the Prophet.

I believe the above is plain in its import, and that what I said in my article is perfectly in line with what was said by these leaders of the LDS Church.

EW> Nor are they considered or thought of as apostate EW> churches by adherents of the LDS faith.  Now, Mr. White may be able to EW> find a few isolated instances that seem to contradict what I have said, EW> nevertheless, the above statement is the overwhelming expression of EW> both the church leadership and its members, both in the past and in the EW> present.

I think the overwhelming expression of the quotations prior to this is plain enough evidence of Mr. Watson's error.

EW> Considering that Mr. White claims to have spoken with EW> thousands of Mormons and to have read many LDS books by prominent and EW> recognized LDS authors, I find it difficult to believe that he did not EW> already understand our use of the word "apostasy" and hence I must EW> conclude that his inaccurate description was intended to incense an EW> ill-informed protestant public rather than to clarify the LDS viewpoint EW> on the subject.

Such is far from the truth, as any semi-impartial reader can see.

EW> Moving right along, the rest of Mr. White's second sentence is also EW> an absurd mis-representation.  The LDS church does not, nor has it EW> ever taught that authority is necessary to do the works of God.  Good EW> works are independent of race, creed, gender, education, age or even EW> disposition.

Please note the incredible double standard used here by Mr. Watson to attack me.  First he says that I need to use terms as LDS use them. Then, when I do that, he turns around and attacks me for that!  The term "works" as I used it is PLAINLY about works that require the authority of God!  I was speaking exactly as Joseph Fielding Smith, quoted above:

        In the apostasy, the authority to act in the name of the Lord         had been taken away from the earth,

I would think that any Mormon looking merely to understand what I am saying would surely understand my words and not be so easily thrown into a tizzy!

EW> We do believe that authority is necessary, but not for EW> doing good works, which is the impression Mr. White wants to induce in EW> his readers with the words "to do the works of God."

I deny, plainly, that this was my intention.  Why Mr. Watson must so badly misread my words, especially in light of the fact that we have corresponded in the past about these same subjects, is truly beyond me!



Ä Area: Mormon ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ   Msg#: 23                                          Date: 08 Jun 93  17:39:26   From: James White                                      To: All                                            Subj: Article Review #13 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

EW> Mr. White's statement is therefore strongly misleading at best, EW> and simply wrong at worst.  Again, with Mr. White's study of the LDS EW> church, it is inconceivable that he did not understand this concept.

It is inconceivable to me that Mr. Watson could so badly misread my words.

EW> Having misled his readers about some of the basic teachings of the EW> apostasy and the purpose of authority in the LDS church, Mr. White now EW> leads them further awry by misrepresenting the basic nature of the EW> apostasy.

Please note that Mr. Watson, having started out on the ad hominem track, has little choice but to continue down that road.  I misled no one to begin with; I accurately represented the LDS position.  And now I deny having misrepresented the basic nature of the alleged apostasy as well.

EW> He speaks of a requirement necessitated by the LDS belief, EW> to explain how "the Christian Church ceased to exist," knowing that in EW> the minds of his Protestant readers this will mean the abolishment of EW> every Christian organization, doctrine, tradition, teaching, writing, EW> belief and even concept.

Mr. Watson's abilities as a mind reader are no better than anyone else's I know.  Mormon leaders say the Christian Church ceased to exist.  If Mr. Watson wants to expand that out to absurd lengths, and then accuse me of something, I can't stop him, but it is just a little above absurd.

EW> That such did not happen is obvious to even EW> the most casual observer.  Mr. White never bothers to inform his EW> readers that the LDS understanding of the apostasy is based upon the EW> loss of authority, not doctrines, teachings or beliefs.

Mr. Watson and I have discussed this in the past, so he is well aware that I am familiar with the issue.  However, I feel a review of the citations I provided above demonstrate that in LDS thinking, the apostasy in doctrines, teachings, and beliefs was directly related to the loss of authority.

EW> Once the early EW> church lost the special authority to perform valid baptisms, then the EW> apostasy was complete.  Mr. White does briefly address our belief in EW> authority in his next paragraph, but he disassociates it completely EW> from the topic of the apostasy, where it specifically belongs.

What Mr. Watson calls a "disassociation" I call a paragraph break. I also call this entire section of his review "nit-picking."

>      The Mormon belief lays heavy emphasis upon the doctrine of the >  priesthood.  According to Mormonism, Jesus Christ ordained His >  apostles to the Melchizedek priesthood, and this priesthood was >  lost to the Church by the end of the second century.  Supposedly, >  this priesthood was restored to the earth in 1829 when Peter, >  James, and John gave it to Joseph Smith.  We cannot here address >  the highly anti-biblical nature of this teaching regarding the >  Melchizedek priesthood (we invite our readers to write and request >  our tract, *What is Your Authority?* for further information). >  Instead, we wish to focus upon how the LDS Church has undertaken >  to defend this belief regarding a vanishing and then reappearing >  Christian Church.

EW> I find it highly amusing that Mr. White has chosen to ignore the EW> topic of the loss and restoration of priesthood authority (which EW> constitutes the universal apostasy and subsequent restoration) EW> preferring to focus instead upon the vanishing and then reappearing EW> Christian Church, which, in the sense in Mr. White is using the words, EW> has never been taught nor believed by the LDS Church.

I do not think it is particularly amusing that Mr. Watson wishes to focus attention on non-issues.  I have not chosen to "ignore" anything, as I have debated Mr. Watson on these issues on the MORMON echo before, and hence his accusation has no merit, again.  I am not sure why Mr. Watson feels he has editorial control over what I write, and that I should somehow work outside of space constraints just to meet his whims and desires.  But the fact remains that what I said regarding the vanishing and re-appearing Christian Church is exactly in line with what Joseph Fielding Smith said, for without the gospel, you do not have the Church, and Joseph Fielding Smith said:

        The world had been without this gospel for many hundreds of         years, ever since the great apostasy and turning away from         the truth which had been established

EW> Mr. White EW> now proposes to ignore the apostasy itself and examine instead some of EW> its results, apparently intending to show that since not all vestiges EW> of spirituality, belief and doctrinal comprehension vanished, there was EW> no apostasy.

It is beyond me how anyone can expect to be taken seriously when they write such obvious foolishness as this.  Anyone who read my article knows that this is pure rhetoric, nothing else.



Ä Area: Mormon ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ   Msg#: 24                                          Date: 08 Jun 93  17:40:20   From: James White                                      To: All                                            Subj: Article Review #14 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

EW> Mr. White expresses his opinion that the LDS doctrine of priesthood EW> authority is anti-biblical, a point with which I most thoroughly EW> disagree.  That discussion will of necessity wait for another time and EW> place.  I must remark however, before continuing with the present EW> article, that if Mr. White's advertised tract *What is Your EW> Authority?* (which I have never seen) is as accurate and informative as EW> the article presently under review has been thus far, I would be very EW> hesitant to rely upon any of it's claims.

Given that we have found Mr. Watson to be dealing with misrepresentation on a grand scale all through this review, I can only conclude that "What Is Your Authority?" must be well worth the reading.

>      When faced with the concept of a universal apostacy [sic], >  Christians often quote relevant passages of Scripture that would >  contradict the LDS position.  For example, Paul wrote to the >  Ephesians and spoke much about the Church.  /Footnote 1/  In the >  third chapter he wrote: > >        Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all >      we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work >      within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ >      Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen. >      /Footnote 2/ > >      It seems quite plain that Paul believed that the Father would >  be glorified "in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all >  generations."  If the Church failed in its mission, and ceased to >  exist for 1700 years, it is difficult to understand how the Father >  would be glorified in the church *throughout* all generations. > >  /Footnote 1/  Indeed, LDS often cite passages from Ephesians 2:20 >  regarding the necessity of apostles in the Church, not realizing it >  seems, that the passage says that the Apostles are part of the >  *foundation* of the Church, and one lays a foundation only once, and >  then begins to build the house upon it.  The Apostles continue to >  function today, through their witness in Scripture, in a >  foundational way. > >  /Footnote 2/  All quotations are taken from the *New International >  Version,* unless otherwise noted.

EW> I don't get the same thing out of Paul's doxology in Ephesians 3:20 EW> that Mr. White does.  The purpose of Paul's statement is to praise EW> God, in this instance in the form of a prayer or a blessing.  Paul is EW> essentially saying "May God be glorified through the church and EW> through Jesus Christ forever, Amen."  When you tell a bride and groom EW> "May you have a long, happy and prosperous life together," you are not EW> prophesying that they will never be divorced, you are expressing to EW> them your sincere hopes that they may not.  This verse is therefore EW> inapplicable in the sense in which Mr. White is attempting to use it.

We have here a truly great example of LDS re-interpretation of Biblical passages.  The text is plain for all to read:

Eph 3.20-21 20 Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, 21 to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.

This is surely a doxology....and yet some of the greatest theology in the Word comes from just such doxologies.  This is no mere "wish" for a bride and groom!  Here Paul speaks of the great resurrection power of Jesus Christ that is at work in believers, and hence in the Church!  To the Father, Paul says, be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever!  Now, I simply ask:  is the Father glorified in Jesus Christ throughout all generations?  Of course!  Is there any possibility that the Father would NOT be glorified in Jesus Christ throughout all generations? OF COURSE NOT!  Therefore, will not the Father be glorified in the Church throughout all generations?  Of course!  Is there any chance of the Father NOT being glorified in the Church throughout all generations?  OF COURSE NOT!  There is no need to twist the inspired words around to attack the perpetuity of the Church.

EW> It is not a prophecy that the church will continue to exist throughout EW> all generations.  That an apostasy of the church must occur before the EW> second coming of the Savior is abundantly clear from several EW> scriptures, one of the more clear being 2Thes 2:3:

EW> Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not EW> come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin EW> be revealed, the son of perdition;

Two things make Mr. Watson's interpretation in error:  1) Who is the man of sin, and when was he revealed?  2)  An apostasy does not equal a TOTAL apostasy.  Indeed, the fact that apostasy was already a present reality in the Church at the time of Paul shows that apostasy can exist without it being UNIVERSAL.



Ä Area: Mormon ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ   Msg#: 25                                          Date: 08 Jun 93  17:51:54   From: James White                                      To: All                                            Subj: Article Review #15 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

EW> Mr. White brings up a by-the-way point in his first footnote which EW> should be addressed, that of a foundation only being laid once, and EW> then the house being built upon it.  Mr. White is stretching Paul's EW> metaphor beyond its applicability.

On the contrary, this is quite in line with Paul's own use of the term "foundation":

1Cor 3.10-11 10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. (NIV)

Obviously, the foundation of which Paul speaks has *already been laid,* and is not going to be laid again and again and again.  Hence, the usage I made of the passage is fully in line with Paul.

Next we see something that is so very sad.  It is a common action of the enemies of the Christian faith, for when they are pressed about their errors, they inevitably attack the Word of God which convicts them of their sin.  And so Mr. Watson does the same thing.  Listen as he describes the Scriptures:

EW> It was not built upon a few of the collected extant EW> writings of four of the apostles, supplemented by some additional EW> writings about them by various and sundry interested persons, as Mr. EW> White would have us believe.

He is referring to my citation of the following passage:

Eph 2.19-20 19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. (NIV)

It is so sad to read someone referring to the foundation of the apostles and prophets in the way Mr. Watson does!  And does he not see that we are *built* (aorist passive participle) upon the foundation of apostles and prophets?  The foundation has been laid, and the house is now being built.  Again, perfectly consistent with Paul's own usage.

EW> It would have been difficult to build the EW> church on a foundation of some documents that were not written until EW> long after the church was already established.

Some documents?  Oh, Mr. Watson is referring to God-breathed Scripture, which had been the possession of God's people since the days of Moses!  Maybe he forgot that 75% of the Bible existed when Jesus was laid in the manger?

EW> If the foundation were EW> to have been "only once" laid, then there would have been no reason to EW> have replaced any of the apostles.

That is assuming, of course, that the foundation is a group, not the truth itself of the Gospel.

EW> Again, if it were true that the EW> foundation of the apostles and prophets must be first laid "only once" EW> and then the church built upon it, as Mr. White's statement would EW> require, then I would be interested in knowing how any of the New EW> Testament writings, which were all written long after the church was EW> established, could be considered to contain any "foundational" EW> material.

Mr. Watson again shows his deep ignorance of historic Christian theology on this subject as well.

>      Surely if the Church ceased to exist for 1700 years, it could >  be said with truthfulness that the "gates of Hades" did indeed >  overcome the Church.

EW> But after the 1700 years Mr. White speaks of, the battle was not EW> yet over.  That the saints were "overcome" was a planned temporary EW> setback: planned, because it was predicted and prepared for.  In the EW> 13th chapter of Revelation, we find the following:

EW> 7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to EW> overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and EW> tongues, and nations.

The book of Revelation has provided fertile ground for various cult groups throughout the ages.  Mr. Watson provides us with no contextual reason to think that this passage has anything to do with the destruction of the entire church, nor that this event, if it is even a prophecy, is a past event!



Ä Area: Mormon ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ   Msg#: 26                                          Date: 08 Jun 93  17:52:25   From: James White                                      To: All                                            Subj: Article Review #16 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

EW> All kindreds, and tongues, and nations I consider to be general.

General, yes; universal, no.

EW> And EW> then in the following chapter (chapter 14) we read how the temporary EW> setback was to be overcome and righteousness prevail in the end:

EW> 6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the EW> everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and EW> to every nation, and kindred, and tongue and people,

EW> Rev. 13:7 demonstrates that the apostasy was universal, and extended EW> over every kindred, tongue and nation.

It says nothing of the kind, nor does it in fact even speak of an apostasy at all!  Contextually, to the persecuted Church, the warfare against the saints would more likely be external, not internal in the loss of some supposed "authority" that the book of Revelation knows nothing of.

EW> Rev. 14:6 demonstrates that EW> the everlasting gospel was to be restored by an angel to every nation, EW> kindred, tongue and people.  Why the necessity for an angel to restore EW> the everlasting gospel to the earth if it were already here?

As if John were speaking of Moroni!  Again, I find this voyage into wild interpretation of Revelation as interesting as the Jehovah's Witnesses confident assertions, and equally as compelling.

EW> Remember, "It ain't over 'till the fat lady sings."  It was not only EW> prophesied that the church would fall into apostasy, it was also EW> prophesied that there would be a restoration:

EW> And he shall send Jesus Christ which before was preached unto EW> you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution EW> of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy EW> prophets since the world began.  (Acts 3:20-21)

Given that the holy prophets since the world began did not know of the Church, as Paul himself taught, the supposed "restoration" thereof certainly could not have been included in their prophecies. Furthermore, this passage is in reference to the second coming of Christ, which has not yet taken place.

While it would be highly instructive to point out Mr. Watson's use of ad hominem to avoid points (such as his "Fortunately, most people find criticisms by someone less than a tithe of their stature hardly worth noticing" so as to avoid a substantive criticism of Nibley's highly questionable historical statements) and his lightly brushing off Nibley's penchant for ignoring original contexts, I will close with only this last statement on his part:

EW>  I would only point out that Dr. Nibley was publishing articles EW>  in Greek before Mr. White cut his first tooth....

That may very well be true.  Of course, the New World Translation of Jehovah's Witnesses was published before I was a gleam in my daddy's eye, and that has absolutely positively nothing at all to do with the fact that I am fully capable of criticizing its many errors.  Dr. Nibley is certainly my senior.  But unlike Mr. Watson, I prefer to allow one's scholarship to speak for itself.  Dr. Nibley had an opportunity to admit his error and retract it.  Instead, he has decided to "go down with the ship" so to speak.  That's his choice, and it is Mr. Watson's choice to sink with him, if he wishes.  But claims of "seniority" have little to do with truth, as I'm sure that Mr. Watson is aware.  Dr. Nibley erred, and no amount of insults, ad hominems, or smokescreens can obscure that simple fact.

James White 6/8/93



Doc viewed 18776 times.

Related Content


This articles keywords/phrases are:

Mormonism
hell

The articles in the list below have 1 or more of the same keywords or phrases as the article you are viewing. If you wish to hone in on a single keyword, click on that keyword and you will see a list of articles that match just that keyword.



The Question of Freemasonry    in Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN THE BOOK OF MORMON AND...    in Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

Do ancient writings confirm Mormonism    in Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

Do Mormons "Really" Believe the Bible?    in Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

WHAT'S GOING ON IN HERE?    in Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

GOSPELS    in Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

How Mormons Are Defending Their Faith    in Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

Joseph Smith The Spiritualist    in Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

The Mormons: A Profile    in Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

Mormon BYU Like Auschwitz    in Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

Youths Perform Baptism For The Dead    in Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

MORMONISM: CHRISTIAN OR CULT    in Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

MORMONISM'S "SALVATION BY WORKS" vs. SALVATION ...    in Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

What Transpires During The Mormon Ceremonies Pt.2    in Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

The Jesus of Christianity vs. The Jesus of Mor...    in Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

The Nature of God vs. Mormonism    in Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

THE REAL HOLY SPIRIT    in Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

WHY THE VISION NETWORK IS A PROBLEM    in Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

Witnessing to Mormons    in Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

"'Ye Are Gods' Orthodox and Heretical Views on...    in Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

A Guide to Marking Your Bible For Witnessing-Intro    in Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

Watchman Fellowship's Guide to Marking Your Bible    in Cults / Sects / Non Christian Religions and Topics

HELL    in Christian Living





Site and Hosting Sponsored by:
Invite Them Home SEO Solutions


Debugging Information
ColdFusion Server Standard 2016,0,12,315717
Template /view.cfm
Time Stamp 08-Apr-20 03:59 PM
Locale English (US)
User Agent CCBot/2.0 (https://commoncrawl.org/faq/)
Remote IP 192.168.10.1
Host Name 192.168.10.1


Execution Time

Total Time Avg Time Count Template
317 ms 317 ms 1 C:/inetpub/wwwroot/believersweb/view.cfm
6 ms 6 ms 1 C:/inetpub/wwwroot/believersweb/header.cfm
1 ms 1 ms 1 C:/inetpub/wwwroot/believersweb/Application.cfm
0 ms 0 ms 1 CFC[ C:/inetpub/wwwroot/believersweb/Portcullis.cfc | scan([complex value], form, 192.168.10.1) ] from C:/inetpub/wwwroot/believersweb/Portcullis.cfc
1 ms  STARTUP, PARSING, COMPILING, LOADING, & SHUTDOWN
319 ms  TOTAL EXECUTION TIME
red = over 250 ms average execution time


SQL Queries

docsum (Datasource=believersweb, Time=2ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\header.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docName, docDescription, keywords, keyverse
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 641

visitor (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\header.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
	SELECT visnum
 	FROM  stats
 	WHERE recid = 1
	
(Datasource=believersweb_write, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\header.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
	UPDATE stats
	SET visnum ='40191512'
	WHERE recid = 1
	
getdoc (Datasource=believersweb, Time=2ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docDate, docAuthor, docCategory, docFileName, docDescription, docsource, viewtimes, keywords, keyverse, docbody
FROM Documents
WHERE docID = ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 641

authorQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT authorName FROM Authors WHERE authorID = ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 131

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID = ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

docdetails (Datasource=believersweb, Time=2ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	docid, 	
		docname,
		keywords,
		keyword_ids
	
FROM documents
WHERE docid = ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 641

keywords (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword
	
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

keywords (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword
	
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62949

doclist (Datasource=believersweb, Time=6ms, Records=22) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	docid, 	
		docname,
		keywords
		

FROM documents
WHERE keyword_ids LIKE ? AND docid <>  ?
ORDER BY docid
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(CF_SQL_CHAR) = %:62912:%
Parameter #2(cf_sql_integer) = 641

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62912

doclist (Datasource=believersweb, Time=5ms, Records=5) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	docid, 	
		docname,
		keywords
		

FROM documents
WHERE keyword_ids LIKE ? AND docid <>  ?
ORDER BY docid
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(CF_SQL_CHAR) = %:62949:%
Parameter #2(cf_sql_integer) = 641

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62949

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62949

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62949

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62949

keyword (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT	keyword, word_id 	
		
FROM keyword_list
WHERE word_id =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 62949

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 580

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 591

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 601

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=2ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 602

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 605

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 608

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=2ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 618

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 639

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=2ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 646

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 648

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=2ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 649

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 650

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 651

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=2ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 660

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 699

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 705

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=2ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 711

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 733

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 738

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=2ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 740

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 838

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=2ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 839

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 11

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 615

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 7

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 887

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 5

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=2ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 955

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 4

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 1046

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 5

getmatch (Datasource=believersweb, Time=1ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT docID, docName, docCategory, docDescription
FROM Documents
WHERE docID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 1076

catQ (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
SELECT categoryName FROM Categories WHERE categoryID =  ? 
Query Parameter Value(s) -
Parameter #1(cf_sql_integer) = 1

views (Datasource=believersweb, Time=0ms, Records=1) in C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm @ 15:59:55.055
	SELECT docviews, pageviews, rc_views, visnum
 	FROM  stats
 	WHERE recid = 1


Scope Variables

Application Variables:
applicationname=Believersweb
portcullis=Struct (21)
CGI Variables:
AUTH_PASSWORD=
AUTH_TYPE=
AUTH_USER=
CERT_COOKIE=
CERT_FLAGS=
CERT_ISSUER=
CERT_KEYSIZE=256
CERT_SECRETKEYSIZE=2048
CERT_SERIALNUMBER=
CERT_SERVER_ISSUER=C=GB, S=Greater Manchester, L=Salford, O=COMODO CA Limited, CN=COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA
CERT_SERVER_SUBJECT=OU=Domain Control Validated, OU=PositiveSSL, CN=believersweb.org
CERT_SUBJECT=
CF_TEMPLATE_PATH=C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm
CONTENT_LENGTH=0
CONTENT_TYPE=
CONTEXT_PATH=
GATEWAY_INTERFACE=CGI/1.1
HTTPS=on
HTTPS_KEYSIZE=256
HTTPS_SECRETKEYSIZE=2048
HTTPS_SERVER_ISSUER=C=GB, S=Greater Manchester, L=Salford, O=COMODO CA Limited, CN=COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA
HTTPS_SERVER_SUBJECT=OU=Domain Control Validated, OU=PositiveSSL, CN=believersweb.org
HTTP_ACCEPT=text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8
HTTP_ACCEPT_ENCODING=br,gzip
HTTP_ACCEPT_LANGUAGE=en-US,en;q=0.5
HTTP_CONNECTION=Keep-Alive
HTTP_COOKIE=
HTTP_HOST=believersweb.org
HTTP_REFERER=
HTTP_URL=/view.cfm?id=641&rc=1&list=multi
HTTP_USER_AGENT=CCBot/2.0 (https://commoncrawl.org/faq/)
LOCAL_ADDR=192.168.10.5
PATH_INFO=
PATH_TRANSLATED=C:\inetpub\wwwroot\believersweb\view.cfm
QUERY_STRING=id=641&rc=1&list=multi
REMOTE_ADDR=192.168.10.1
REMOTE_HOST=192.168.10.1
REMOTE_USER=
REQUEST_METHOD=GET
SCRIPT_NAME=/view.cfm
SERVER_NAME=believersweb.org
SERVER_PORT=443
SERVER_PORT_SECURE=1
SERVER_PROTOCOL=HTTP/1.1
SERVER_SOFTWARE=Microsoft-IIS/8.0
WEB_SERVER_API=
Cookie Variables:
CFID=3129276
CFTOKEN=2638b03e191cd6eb-93EC3895-C294-74F4-335507A037B1267B
Server Variables:
coldfusion=Struct (10)
os=Struct (5)
Session Variables:
cfid=3129276
cftoken=2638b03e191cd6eb-93EC3895-C294-74F4-335507A037B1267B
contentwidth=825
sessionid=BELIEVERSWEB_3129276_2638b03e191cd6eb-93EC3895-C294-74F4-335507A037B1267B
sessiontimer={ts '2020-04-08 15:59:55'}
urltoken=CFID=3129276&CFTOKEN=2638b03e191cd6eb-93EC3895-C294-74F4-335507A037B1267B
visitor=1
URL Parameters:
id=641
list=multi
rc=1
Debug Rendering Time: 7 ms