Paul Gee on "Sola Scriptura" - "Beware of False Prophets" Reviewed

     

Recent screenshot from my direct messages with Paul Gee. It seems like he misses me :')

    Mr. Gee has, over the last several months, issued a number of "challenges" requesting that I "try to refute" his "messages". Paul expects that I, a semi-private person with an incredibly busy personal life, should invest significant time at the end of each day responding to whatever drivel he cooks up in the evening. In this span of time, I've invested some energy in attempting to read through as many of his "devotionals" in chronological order as I can, as they are posted to his site, "Christianity vs. Mormonism". That expenditure yielded some understanding of the development of Paul's thoughts and rhetoric, and seems to have revealed that Paul can get quite repetitive. He repeats the same themes rather frequently. Favourites would be, by my estimation, "Sola Scriptura", "Mormons worship a different Jesus", "Celestial marriage", "Mormonism is a cult", "The Church doesn't save you" (in other words, "Mormons have a works-based gospel"), various iterations of "temples are of the devil", "How the Atonement ACTUALLY happened", and "Joseph Smith". 

    Rather than respond to every article Paul has and/or will ever compose, I plan to respond to these themes that Paul repeats throughout the body of his work. Should anything unique come about, I'll take that on in kind. For this post, let's take a look at Paul's earliest dated work on "Christianity vs. Mormonism" under the topic, "Sola Scriptura": a "devotional" titled, "Beware of False Prophets".

    Dated to 3 October, 2016, Paul's work might be casually dismissed given that "Sola Scriptura" is a self-defeating doctrine. However, given that I tend to prefer thoroughness, I'll work through the entirety of Paul's piece. Though I will proceed with my own thoughts, I highly recommend Robert Boylan's brilliant 2017 article, "Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura", as my preferred resource on the topic of "Sola Scriptura".

The Bible contains the fullness of the gospel. I know this to be true for its words are a light in my life. The words speak to my heart.

    From these very first lines, we can now hold Paul to the subjectivity of his personal standard for truth. This testimony from Paul will be very important for interpreting later statements throughout the corpus of his work that regard what he claims to be "true" and "false". His reasons for "knowing" truth are entirely subjective. "Its words are a light in my life" is a figurative statement, and "the words speak to my heart" could be read to mean two things: 1) this sentence is the key for interpreting what "light in my life" means, that is, "the words of the bible enrich my life as they speak to my heart"; 2) because the words speak to his heart, he feels that that must mean that it is true that "The Bible contains the fullness of the gospel." Unfortunately, Paul never explains what "a light in my life" means, so we cannot assume that "the words speak to my heart" is actually how we should interpret Paul's figurative language. We are then left with our second meaning of "the words speak to my heart", which confirms that Paul's basis for determining "truth" is the feelings he has when he encounters the object of inquiry, in this case, the protestant version of the Holy Bible.

I think it is interesting that the Mormon Church used to believe this as well. The title page of the Book of Mormon (1981 edition) used to read, speaking of the Book of Mormon, “a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fullness of the everlasting gospel.” However, this was changed in 2004 and newer editions. The part about the Bible was removed. It now reads, “a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fullness of the everlasting gospel.” 

    Paul likes to engage in this rhetorical strategy, where he points out something and says, "now isn't that interesting", as if it means anything, or should be a smoking gun. In this case, he refers to the "title page of the Book of Mormon". Paul doesn't use the correct reference, as the actual title page of the Book of Mormon does not contain any of the text Paul has quoted. One important note is that the title page was a part of the text that Joseph Smith, Jr. translated from the gold plates, and not something added later. We might here dismiss Paul's adamance that this is a "smoking gun" because of his inability to gather proper sources, but we'll continue on through his "devotional"--again, for the sake of being thorough. What Paul seems to have been trying to reference is the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, which itself is a later addition by the Church to help readers contextualize the book they are about to read. I unfortunately do not have my personal 1981 edition on-hand, but the current version of the Book of Mormon's introduction states, "The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel" (emphasis mine). Paul, in excluding a portion of the paragraph, omits something very significant. That "the Book of Mormon is ... comparable to the Bible ... and contains the fullness of the everlasting gospel" leaves open the implication that the Church still believes the bible is a collection of texts that contain "the fullness of the gospel". Nothing about that says, as Paul claims, that the church only "used to believe this" (emphasis mine). 

Any church that removes references to the Bible, having the fullness of the gospel, cannot be trusted. Saying any book has more truth than the Bible is false. 

    Paul does not explain why "any church … cannot be trusted" if they remove references to the bible. What if someone makes a mistake, and uses a verse out of context in teaching material? Is it untrustworthy for them to remove that reference later, once they've learned better the context of a reference? As an aside, the grammar of this sentence would imply that only churches that have the "fullness of the gospel", that then remove "references to the Bible" (remove from what, we are not told), are to not be trusted (trusted for what, is not explained). Paul also does not explain why it is "false", or what that entails, to say that "any book has more truth than the Bible". Paul also fails to explain what "more truth than the Bible" means, and we are left only with Paul's hope that we'll accept his words at face value, with no further inquiry or explanation. Poor grammar and lack of explanation undermine any strength that Paul's verbiage might've had, as the reader is unable to truly grasp what Paul is attempting to convey.

This news needs to get out. We need to reach out to our Mormon friends. Awaken them to the truths of the Bible. The Lord speaks through every word.

     I fail to see how this "news" qualifies as anything noteworthy, novel, or even worth considering. Paul's "news" is unexplained, underdeveloped, and--by what little premises Paul offers that we've already examined--fallacious. Paul, here, is merely trying to stir up the reader to action. But what action can be taken? The Latter-day Saints already believe that the Bible contains "the fullness of the gospel", and they will readily admit that they believe the Lord speaks to them through scripture.

In our day, there are many false prophets. They come as godly men but “but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

     Paul's quotation of scripture, here, is nothing more than a paraphrase of last-day prophecy. Using quotation from authoritative sources is one way to grant yourself the appearance of authority on a subject, so it becomes important to examine the content beyond used quotations. So far in our examination of Paul's message, his original content has been lacking in a number of aspects. Take that as you will, with regard to any amount of authority you wish to ascribe to Paul.

Their message might sound uplifting but if the truths of the Bible are not taught than it is only flattery words.

     It seems to me that here, Paul conflates the quality of a "true prophet" with the quality of being "from the Bible". Paul does not explain what "the truths of the Bible" are, leaving us, again, without any indication of what he is trying to convince us of. Latter-day Saints will readily tell you that they accept "the truths of the Bible". If you see that differently, explain! Don't just say, "no you don't."

If their doctrines add to the precious parts of the Bible than it is undermining the Bible’s validity.

    This statement only works if we accept Paul's assumption that the bible is a single, univocal text; this is simply not the case. Rather, the bible is a collection of 66 (or more) unique and diverse texts, each with different details, messages, genres, and intentions. Could the bible have even come to be without the addition-over-time of these quite varied texts to the long-developing world of ancient Judeo-Christian thought? No. Also, Paul doesn't elaborate on what "the precious parts of the Bible" are. Does that mean that one could add to the specifically not-precious parts without "undermining the Bible's validity"?

The Word of God has no need to be changed for it is true.

    This statement sounds fine, but it will inevitably mean different things to different people--that's why it sounds fine. For us to determine if we agree or disagree with Paul on this, he needs to elaborate on what he thinks "the Word of God" is. 

We must be ready to fight on the Lords side or else Satan will come at us hard. He will try to tear down our walls and confuse the real truth.

    Appeal to emotion. Depending on your theological preconceptions, you may or may not agree with Paul, here. Paul also does not explain what "the real truth" is. What if someone believes they already have the real truth?

Jesus said, “Ye shall know them by their fruits.”

    Another hand-picked quotation to create the perception that Paul Gee has some degree of authority on this subject. However, this quote is incredibly important: we can accept Jesus' instruction, and apply it to those we are examining. With this quote in mind, we can ask two questions in the current situation: 

1. What are the fruits of the Latter-day Saints' teachings?

2. What are the fruits of Paul Gee's "teachings"? 

If we are living by the Spirit we will see right through their messages.

    Paul Gee emphasises that we will see through the messages of false prophets, but he doesn't tell us who the false prophets are. I think he hopes that it is implied that the "false prophets" are Latter-day Saint general authorities, but the statements are equally applicable if we view Paul Gee as a false prophet.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is contained in the Bible. To learn from its words brings good fruit in people’s lives. Lives are changed like never before. People are born again with new hope. For Jesus is our greatest teacher. When we hear His words we can’t help but to be touched.

    Latter-day Saints would not disagree with this, mostly. Some dispute could occur over how one becomes "born again", but that is not relevant to the point of this article. Paul's underlying assumption is that these statements, if accepted, mean that "sola scriptura" is a legitimate doctrine of Christ. However, the statements themselves are so shallow that they do not convey this implication.

Lord Jesus, give us protection. Lead us on your path. Let your will be done. I love You.

    Great. Paul publicly declares that he loves Jesus. That is certainly something he can do, though it does not add anything to the rest of his article. I view these statements from Paul as something of a signature, as though Paul is informing us that he is "signing off".