Posted on 06/06/2013 5:44:09 AM PDT by Colofornian
Dear Stacey:
You have written demanding an apology for my recent characterization of the Mormon religion as "non-Christian." I am happy to write a public letter of apology to you and to the countless Mormon readers who responded negatively to my characterization.
I am sorry that so many of my Mormon readers have brazenly accused me of ignorance of their religion and suggested that I read the Book of Mormon. I am sorry that they were unaware that I read the Book of Mormon back in 2006.
I am sorry that the science of genetics has refuted claims made in the Book of Mormon concerning the relationship between Native Americans and Semitic people. These refutations undermine the entire historical premise of the Book of Mormon.
I am also sorry that while archeological discovery supports the claims of the Bible it clearly does not support the claims of the Book of Mormon. Battles that were supposed to have occurred in specific locations in North America simply never took place. The archeological evidence just isn't there.
I am sorry about the plagiarism of the Holy Bible that runs through the Book of Mormon. I am sorry that Mormons cannot see that Joseph Smith's refusal to reveal the golden tablets is strong evidence of their nonexistence. The heavy plagiarism in the Book of Mormon puts the lie to the rest of the story of Smith, the former seeker of the lost treasures of Captain Kidd.
I am sorry that my Mormon readers have put all their eggs in one basket by constantly writing to me quoting Matthew 7:16. So I am sorry that I must now apply that verse to the very first Mormon.
I am sorry that among the 33 well-documented plural wives of Joseph Smith, there were close to a dozen unions in which the wife was already married to another man.
I am sorry that in his lifetime, Joseph Smith married four different pairs of sisters. I am sorry that Joseph Smith married a young woman and also married her mother.
I am sorry that some of Joseph Smith's marriages were the result of religious coercion secured only after he told the prospective bride that marrying him would ensure the bride’s place in heaven. I am sorry that Smith also coerced teenagers into marrying him by promising their families a place in heaven.
I am sorry that Joseph Smith kept fourteen-year-old Helen Mar Kimball from marrying her sweetheart Horace Whitney because he wanted to marry the teenager instead. I am sorry that Joseph Smith also asked Helen’s father Heber C. Kimball to give him his wife.
I am sorry that before he eventually married Helen, Joseph Smith gave her a 24-hour deadline to give in to his offer of a place in heaven. I am sorry that two years after the death of Joseph Smith, Helen married her old sweetheart Horace Whitney. I am sorry that the marriage between Helen and Horace was only temporary because Helen was already "sealed" by marriage to Joseph Smith for eternity. I am sorry that Horace Whitney was "sealed" to an already dead Mormon woman before his “temporary” marriage to Helen.
I am sorry that after her mother died, Joseph Smith approached teenager Lucy Walker with a command that she marry Smith with the threat of eternal damnation as the punishment if she refused. I am sorry that the year before Joseph Smith died, he said the following to Lucy: “I will give you until tomorrow to decide (whether to marry me). If you reject this message the gate will be closed forever against you.”
I am sorry that the Book of Mormon, which Joseph Smith claims to have transcribed from the golden plates given to him by the Angel Moroni, says the following: “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, Saith the Lord.” (Jacob 2:24).
I am sorry that Joseph Smith said the following shortly before his death: "(W)hen I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my father, so that he may obtain kingdom among kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself.”
I am sorry that Smith’s polytheism is not consistent with John 14:6. I am also sorry that since these are the words of Christ, polytheism cannot be Christian. Moreover, I am sorry, my Mormon friends, but the the words of Christ trump the words of Joseph Smith who will never be God.
I am sorry that Mormonism teaches that Christ was not there in the beginning, that god was just a man who became God by following a moral code he did not create, and that we may all become gods by following the same moral code that predates the existence of Jesus. I am sorry that the theological mess caused by Joseph Smith is irreconcilable with the teachings of the Holy Bible.
Finally, I am sorry that my Mormon readers have unfairly accused me of criticizing Mormonism without doing my homework. But I am glad I did. Now I understand the significance of Galatians 1:6-9.
I’m afraid I’m unfamiliar with the “Book of Nature”, Mrs. Don-o. But, aside from that, I stand by my assertion. Science is nothing but the branch of discovery by which we. as Christians, attempt to discover and use the principles of the universe created by the Lord. It is limited by our fallible human natures and in no way can be given equal footing with Scripture.
We have to remember that not all of what is known as “science” agrees with the Bible....notably the theory of evolution. I don’t know if this is what you mean when you mention secondary causes, or reason and coherence. When science contradicts Scripture, and evolution does, we have to make a choice what we will believe.
God IS a God of reason and coherence, because He is Truth. But He is also a God of unknowable mysteries and astonishing miracles.
Thanks for the re post, missed it before.
Everything I know about Mormons and Joseph Smith I learned from South Park.
Mike Adams is a good writer, and also a pretty good 8th inning guy for the Phillies.
Should seem to be too obvious. But here goes.
A great many conservative Christians reject the theory of evolution because it conflicts with the Bible.
Now this is, IMO, a position that can be argued. But it is not possible to argue that the vast majority of scientific evidence does not point towards the truth that evolution takes place. Without evolution the whole notion of living things being organized into hierarchies of “related” organisms makes no sense.
Personally, I believe God created life and the evolutionary process. I see it as the equivalent in biology of free will in sentient beings.
God could have created spirit beings and humans with no free will. But he didn’t. He apparently wanted friends, not slaves, and was interested in having things happen other than what he directly caused to happen.
I see similar mechanisms in evolution, though I don’t discount the possibility that he could of course intervene in the process when he chose. Evolution was the method God chose to use to create the wild diversity of life we see around us.
I realize a lot of Christians disagree, and I respect their opinions. I just think they are wrong.
So you choose to argue w/God? His Word is to be BELIEVED and not argued with.
Without evolution the whole notion of living things being organized into hierarchies of “related” organisms makes no sense.
We are to BELIEVE as it is written and 'NOT lean unto your own understanding' despite what 'natural evidence' you think there is and/or what doesn't 'make sense'. You really think with your natural mind you can understand the supernatural things of God? That is PRIDE!
Jesus says...'only believe'. You can be argumentative all you want, disobedient and prideful - it will get you nowhere and/or somewhere you don't want to be.
It doesn't take faith to 'see' something in the natural.
"Without faith no one can please God."
Who are you trying to please?
Neither I nor the Catholic Church "throw the first 11 chapters of Genesis in the garbage can."
For instance, there are at least 4 different ways to interpret the word "day" in the Creation accounts. The Catholic Church does not rule for or against any one of them as a matter of dogma.
There are likewise a half a dozen major, different ways to account for the biological diversity of life on earth. (Here I'm including even wild ones like Francis Crick's idea of "panspermia.") Catholic Church does not rule for or against any one of them as a matter of dogma, either.
I think the Cathoic Church shows an admirable and humble restraint in areas where our knowledge is so decisively incomplete.
But we've been around the block on this several times before, ZC. I will refrain from getting into it with you again.
And Catherine, I fully agree with this statement of yours:
"God IS a God of reason and coherence, because He is Truth. But He is also a God of unknowable mysteries and astonishing miracles."
Well said. We're on the same page there.
I am sorry that Joe Smith modelled himself after Mohammed.
God's concept of creation and of Himself is manifest in the Logos, that perfect system of all truth, beauty, goodness, order, precision and harmony. Those things discoverable empirically and with human reason do not require Divine Revelation, but are rather Natural Revelation. Whether math, physics, biochemistry, and even scientifically observable phenomenon and processes as the adaptation of species within a dynamic environment are all equally miraculous. An Old Testament pedagogy, absent an understanding of the Logos, cannot understand or explain Natural Revelation, only deny it.
Peace be with you
That is a brilliant observation. Islam was initially classified as a Christian heresy when it first appeared, but when the degree of error was properly recognized it transcended heresy. Similarly, Mormonism, drawing heavily (but not completely) upon Christian Scripture transcended heresy only by the degree to which it embraced and exceeded the operating principles of Protestantism.
Peace be with you
Thank you, Mrs. Don-o. God’s blessings to you.
We actually have zero evidence that the Virgin Birth did not occur, whereas we have lots of evidence, IMO, that evolution did occur. The only reason we can offer for disbelief in the Virgin Birth of Christ is that we've never seen such a birth. But that I've never seen a black swan or a little green man is not proof they don't exist.
IOW, the general tenor of past history can be determined from the evidence. Occasional miraculous interventions, which to my mind are just God making an exception to the rules, cannot be disproven by scientific means. Or, of course, proven using the same methods.
bttt
Evolution is simply an often repeated fraud. It cannot stand close examination. The first 3 chapters of Genesis is most certainly true, as is the whole of the Bible.
“The Bible and the natural sciences are in agreement when correctly interpreted.”
The false premise here is that human beings who “read the book of nature” are infallible like the scripture. I’ve read the Book of Nature myself, and reject them.
I wasn't looking for your Book of Nature to be explained! However, it still has NOTHING to do about KNOWING God! It shows that HE IS ALMIGHTY which we already know through His Word. The world He made for man to enjoy and He did it ALL in the days prior to HE making man.
When I say it has the same Author as the Bible, I mean that God is the Master of all reality, and not just the Master of the text.
EVIL is real - are you saying God is the Master of that, also? Master of the text? It is text to you? IT is HIS Spoken Word divinely inspired by HIS OWN SPIRIT!
Why did you leave out the part I responded to... your actual scientific evidence....is just as authoritative as Scripture
'Man' having evidence of God's creation is equivalent to GOD'S WORD??? Seems you have lifted up 'man' to God status.
I am saying that God spoke, and all things came to be, an exact representation of what He willed. So we can discern His Word in both what He created and what He inspired.
God did not create Evil per se. Evil exists because God created wills which were capable of opposing His will, and some of them did. It is a privation of the good, since Evil cannot create anything, it can only grab and twist, pollute and ruin what God made; it can just say "No."
God IS the Master of all things. The devils in Hell know this, and tremble.
“No, I’m not lifting up man to God’s status. That would be an absurdity, since our knowledge and virtue are as nothing compared with His.”
You lifted up evolutionary theory, a creation of man, to the level of infallible scripture. If evolution is true, there is no doctrine of original sin, since, actually, all the organisms in the world were living and dying and “evolving” long before death could enter the world through Adam’s fall.
Archbishop Sheen spoke a great deal about science. I concur with him that human scientific undertakings are merely the discovery of what already exists because God has created it.
No scientist has ever created something from nothing.
I agree with you, Mrs. Don-o that Catherine’s statement is a keeper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.