Romney's faith could hurt an '08 run

It's not his religon, it's his liberalism, particularly his anti-gun stance.

"Baptist reporting for duty!"

Hmmm... Now why does that sound just like the rhetoric of a certain erstwhile presidential candidate? LOL

"Mormonism is inherently blasphemous. It's foundational view of God is, quite simply, a standing insult to Divine dignity. It was, as another poster noted, founded by a sexual pervert who not only practiced polygamy, but took other men's wives. He was a con-man whose religion is as obviously false as any religion can be, contradicting the Bible (which it claims to accept) archeology, history, science (on several counts, from Indian DNA to the health effects of coffee), common sense, and itself. Also they wear ugly underwear."

This is incredible. One thing LDS missionaries immediately learn is that it's almost pointless to have discussions with anti-Mormon hysterics. They won't actually debate things or assemble their litany of contentions into a coherent argument; instead, they just call Mormons names. And now you come to the forum and all you're doing is calling us names.

In other words, you're shrieking like a liberal. Are you sure you wouldn't be more comfortable here?

You simply radiate Christlike love. If screaming like a bayoneted banshee is the method you seek to convert Mormons to your faith, I can save you a lot of time and energy.

It ain't gonna work, babycakes.

1)The only NT passages you can cite are 1 Tim 3:2,12 & Titus 1:5-7 where Paul was telling Timothy and Titus, the bishops and deacons there were to ordain from among their Gentile (i.e. Roman) converts need to keep adhering to the Roman law of monogamy.

And the American law of monogamy was irrelevant before Utah was up for statehood?

"It's foundational view of God is, quite simply, a standing insult to Divine dignity."

This I gotta see.

Try this.

Also, the biblical contradiction you mentioned.

Compare Isaiah 43:10-11 to the link above.

The ironic thing is I've lost interest in defending Mormonism - I barely attend church anymore and then people like you invariably show up and spout idiotic denunciations oozing self-righteous hypocrisy which drags me back into Mormonism all over again. Thanks a lot!

I have yet to see a Mormon who could hear any criticism of his religion without replying with personal invective, while simultaneously accusing the non-Mormon of personal invective. The fact that you guys, in my experience, always attribute any disagreement to personal animus makes me suspect your own religion is based on animus toward everyone outside your "tribe" and you simply lack the imagination to conceive of differing motives in others.

2)This is incredible. One thing LDS missionaries immediately learn is that it's almost pointless to have discussions with anti-Mormon hysterics. They won't actually debate things or assemble their litany of contentions into a coherent argument; instead, they just call Mormons names. And now you come to the forum and all you're doing is calling us names.

Which reconfirms the point I made above.

I said negative things about Joseph Smith -- and this is no less than any non-Mormon does implicitly by not being Mormon. If Mormonism is untrue (and it is) then either Joseph Smith was a conscious fraud or he had dealings with unclean spirits. Likewise for my criticism of the religion in general. I suppose the underwear comment is a matter of taste, but I can't imagine many people disagreeing.

Which names did I call you? (That is, a group to which you belong, since you said "us" -- Joe Smith will not count because you’re not Joe Smith.) If that’s ALL I’m doing, surely you can find ONE example..

But then, if calling names is all I did, I must not have noted that Mormonism contradicts the Bible, history, science, archeology, common sense, and itself. If I did say that stuff, I would think you would be honor-bound to admit your error.

In other words, you're shrieking like a liberal. Are you sure you wouldn't be more comfortable here? You simply radiate Christlike love. If screaming like a bayoneted banshee is the method you seek to convert Mormons to your faith, I can save you a lot of time and energy.

If you’re reduced to this level, you’re better off if you just stop typing.

OK, since all you've done is cite the King Follett Discourse without EXPLAINING why you find it so distasteful; here's a page containing several hundred pages of my PERSONAL writings concerning the LDS concept of God the Father:

http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id26.htm

There's 18 chapters and several hundred references. Go nuts.

If Second Isaiah's "YHWH's challenge to the false gods" is all you can cite (and only one of the four Second Isaiah passages and none of the other 38 passages commonly used against Mormonism); I suggest you do a hell of a lot more research before making yourself look foolish.

See
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id164.htm

If you can refute them; then we're in business. Otherwise try not to be so arrogant in the future. These are my own writings. I don't need to rely upon the works of others to validate my position.

It has been my experience over nearly 20 years of debating that no Baptist has ever been able to justify their opposition to Mormonism. This is ESPECIALLY true with those who have minimal knowledge of what the Bible really teaches.

I've noticed those who know it the least are often those who are the most vocal about their expertise and how everyone who disagrees with them are wrong.

Edward Watson and I must have gotten our points across effectively, judging by your response.

Let's take it from the top. Your first point was that the American law of monogamy was relevant to Utah. When Utah was first settled by the pioneers, the land was part of Mexico and thus outside American jurisdiction. It was in preparation for admission to the Union that polygamy was renounced in the Utah territory.

Also, talk about anticlimactic! When I clicked on the link you provided, I was expecting the usual risible assertions that Mormons have horns and such. What I found instead was a contemplative address about the nature of God. How scandalous.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of personal invective. Personal invective involves ad hominem attacks such as "son of a whore." I called you one name ("babycakes") and levied a few factually-based charges, none of which were ad hominem. I accused you of shrieking (you were), making incoherent, sweeping attacks (you did), being an "anti-Mormon hysteric" (you are) and "radiating Christlike love" in your address (you didn't). These are not ad hominem attacks and thus do not qualify as personal invective, aside from the "babycakes" comment.

On the other hand, you have referred to us as blasphemers, adulterers, perverts, con-men, a "tribe" of savages, and wearers of ugly underwear. How much lower can you get? And, yes, the attacks on Joseph Smith were meant as attacks for all Mormons. You began the paragraph with a sweeping attack on the religion, morphed it into a smear on its founder, and jumped back to "they" in the underwear comment. Your intention is crystal clear. Even if I hypothetically conceded that your attacks on Joseph Smith are irrelevant, you have still called us blasphemers, tribesmen, and wearers of ugly underwear. This is bottom-feeding, personal invective of the worst kind.

"I have yet to see a Mormon who could hear any criticism of his religion without replying with personal invective, while simultaneously accusing the non-Mormon of personal invective."

Now I'll admit that I don't fit the usual profile of the Mormon milquetoast. However, you obviously haven't dealt with large numbers of Mormon missionaries. Having been one myself, the typical reaction to spluttering attacks is first calm, reasoned responses, and if that fails, we turn our backs and leave. I didn't always succeed in that regard when I was a missionary, but almost all of my companions sure did. Neither Edward Watson nor I, as I recall, ever attacked the Baptist faith in any of our postings.

"I said negative things about Joseph Smith -- and this is no less than any non-Mormon does implicitly by not being Mormon."

Huh? This qualifies as a coherent argument?

"I suppose the underwear comment is a matter of taste, but I can't imagine many people disagreeing."

Ya think? Speak for yourself, buster.

"I must not have noted that Mormonism contradicts the Bible, history, science, archeology, common sense, and itself."

According to A.J. Armitage. I could offer a long, carefully reasoned tribute limning exactly how the LDS faith completely fits the Bible, history, science, archaeology, and common sense, but then you would simply contrast it with the Bible, history, science, archaeology and common sense according to A.J. Armitage. That would be a vicious cycle not worth taking a ride on.

Last but not least, you missed and completely ignored a chief point of contention in my earlier response. Regardless of your opinions, your methods of conversion are not going to work. Launching into diatribes lambasting the LDS faith is not going to gain any conversions. My best friend who served an LDS mission in Georgia didn't baptize twenty Baptists into the LDS church by means of slamming the Baptist faith. Mormons admire Baptists and the many strong people of faith who worship in your churches, and the sound moral principles you espouse. We build on that knowledge in constructive ways. I like most of the Baptists I have met, as you can see from an earlier post on the thread.

Think about it. It's time to alter your methods, and perhaps even your attitudes. I would expect a person of faith to utilize more Christlike attributes, and to show more class. However, as a missionary in Hong Kong, I met many supposed people of faith for whom showing class, as far as religious tolerance is concerned, would be like expecting a crocodile to purr. I hope you don't fit that mold.

I'll take the last word on this one.

-srm913

Edward Watson and I must have gotten our points across effectively, judging by your response.

You're already starting to claim victory, eh? It reminds me of a Mormon missionary I talked to who declaired that I "admitted" I followed a false church. I had, of course, done no such thing. I suppose he was just so driven up against the walk he decided to throw something bizarre out there.

Let's take it from the top. Your first point was that the American law of monogamy was relevant to Utah. When Utah was first settled by the pioneers, the land was part of Mexico and thus outside American jurisdiction. It was in preparation for admission to the Union that polygamy was renounced in the Utah territory.

I never said that. Polygamy began before the migration to Utah.

Also, I'm sure Mexico had monogamy laws.

Also, talk about anticlimactic! When I clicked on the link you provided, I was expecting the usual risible assertions that Mormons have horns and such. What I found instead was a contemplative address about the nature of God. How scandalous.

Considering that I was challenged to back up something I had said about the Mormon conception of God, I can hardly think of a more appropriate answer than a link to a Mormon primary source. Contemplative or not, the things it says about God are indeed scandalous.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of personal invective. Personal invective involves ad hominem attacks such as "son of a whore." I called you one name ("babycakes") and levied a few factually-based charges, none of which were ad hominem.

You're demanding a more generous standard for yourself than you're willing to grant me. No, your charges were not "factually based".

I accused you of shrieking (you were)

I was typing.

making incoherent, sweeping attacks (you did)

Either you're raving and you don't even care if your attacks bear any relation to what I've said, or you have your own private definition of coherence.

being an "anti-Mormon hysteric" (you are)

Based on what I've read, I'd think I'm much calmer than you guys are.

and "radiating Christlike love" in your address (you didn't).

"Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees" is Christlike love... toward everyone who might be taken in if not warned.

These are not ad hominem attacks and thus do not qualify as personal invective, aside from the "babycakes" comment.

Your #62 answers none of my substantive contentions (in fact, denied they existed just after quoting them). Instead, the entire thing was devoted to discussing me. But that's a "calm, reasoned response", right?

On the other hand, you have referred to us as blasphemers

Do you say that God was once a man?

adulterers, perverts, con-men,

This is simply dishonest. I called Joseph Smith those things. Well, actually I didn't call him an adulterer (I just did a word search on the thread, and no form of the word appears in any of my previous posts), although he was; even if I were to grant that polygamy is acceptable in our day as a general proposition, Smith vowed to forsake all others as long as both he and Emma were alive.

I did not say all Mormons are those things, nor can anything I say be fairly taken to imply it.

a "tribe" of savages

I said:

The fact that you guys, in my experience, always attribute any disagreement to personal animus makes me suspect your own religion is based on animus toward everyone outside your "tribe" and you simply lack the imagination to conceive of differing motives in others.

Now were did "of savages" come from? For that matter, if "tribe" is an insult, then what would that mean for actual tribe members such as American Indians and Jews?

and wearers of ugly underwear.

That wasn't intended entirely seriously, but hysterical, shrieking, can't-get-any-lower, bottom feeding, bigoted, foolish Baptists should always be taken the worst possible way, unlike Mormons who never insult anyone.

How much lower can you get?

Well, I could always become a Mormon.

And, yes, the attacks on Joseph Smith were meant as attacks for all Mormons.

Even if I assume the most reasonable interpretation of this (a charity that has not been extended to me) your claim that I called Mormons perverts, etc., is still a lie. All you can get from what I said is that you're the deluded followers of a con-man who was a pervert.

You began the paragraph with a sweeping attack on the religion, morphed it into a smear on its founder, and jumped back to "they" in the underwear comment. Your intention is crystal clear.

A smear? The fact is, his personal character was incompatible with his claim to be a prophet of God. Pointing this out is FACT, regardless of your personal reaction.

Now I'll admit that I don't fit the usual profile of the Mormon milquetoast. However, you obviously haven't dealt with large numbers of Mormon missionaries.

I've dealt with more Mormons than you think. And they were all as rude as you.

Having been one myself, the typical reaction to spluttering attacks is first calm, reasoned responses, and if that fails, we turn our backs and leave.

In my experience, they make wierd comments (like the total non-sequiter I mentioned above) in order to divert the conversation. When that fails they assert that they know the BoM is true, they know this, they know that, as if their personal word proved anything.

Neither Edward Watson nor I, as I recall, ever attacked the Baptist faith in any of our postings.

Instead, you've just attacked the Baptist, which is typical M.O.

"I said negative things about Joseph Smith -- and this is no less than any non-Mormon does implicitly by not being Mormon."

Huh? This qualifies as a coherent argument?

Yes, it does.

You quoted it out of context. You accused me of name-calling. I answered:

I said negative things about Joseph Smith -- and this is no less than any non-Mormon does implicitly by not being Mormon. If Mormonism is untrue (and it is) then either Joseph Smith was a conscious fraud or he had dealings with unclean spirits. [I neglected to mention he could have been crazy.]

Your failure of reading conprehension is not my problem, but I'll go ahead and type this slowly for your benefit: by not being Mormon, non-Mormons act on the supposition that Mormonism is false. If Mormonism is false, Joseph Smith was not a prophet. If he was not a prophet, one of several highly negative things must be true of him. Thus, not being Mormon necessarily implies something uncomplimentary about the character of Joseph Smith.

"I must not have noted that Mormonism contradicts the Bible, history, science, archeology, common sense, and itself."

According to A.J. Armitage. I could offer a long, carefully reasoned tribute limning exactly how the LDS faith completely fits the Bible, history, science, archaeology, and common sense, but then you would simply contrast it with the Bible, history, science, archaeology and common sense according to A.J. Armitage. That would be a vicious cycle not worth taking a ride on.

Two points.

1) The presentation of the quotation from me is dishonest. Context. You said, "all you're doing is calling us names." My answer contained the above-quoted line, which is itself a near-verbatim reference to #54. I didn't go into detail, but I did mention all those things, which is something other than calling names.

2) What you've said is relativist.

Think about it. It's time to alter your methods, and perhaps even your attitudes. I would expect a person of faith to utilize more Christlike attributes, and to show more class.

YOU lecturing someone about being Christlike and having class? Beware of the measure ye mete.

Watson seems to expect me to reply to a book. Maybe if I don't have anything better to do I'll make a few points relating to it tomorrow.

I wasn't going to reply, but I'll do so anyway because yet again, you completely ignored my contention that your approach will not work in swaying Mormons to your cause. If you are correct in your belief that all Mormons are hellbound, then you need to convert as many as you can. I'm telling you again, your ham-handed approach will be completely ineffective.

You claim I am rude. Maybe I am. Note, however, two indisputable facts. When I first mentioned the Baptist faith in post #8, I mentioned only positive things about it, and I limned more positive aspects in the last part of post #65. I said I admire the Baptist faith (I do). I just couldn't disagree more with your methods. While I began with positive things to say about Baptists, you began with nothing but negative things to say about Mormonism. I haven't read a single positive thing in any of your postings. That's a fact with no wiggle room. Rude is as rude does. I challenge you to type out what you admire about Mormons and the LDS faith; it's your turn. (You probably won't, though, which will prove my point.)

Don't take my word for it, though. Use your scorched-earth policy to save our poor, withering souls, and I wish you the best of luck. You're certainly going to need it.

-srm913

What websites did you get your information from?

I'm not expecting you to respond to a book. What I have done is prove Mormonism can provide biblical and logical support for every aspect of our beliefs concerning God the Father. And that includes his origins.

IOW, I've put all my cards on the table BEFORE you even start formulating your arguments. This way, I'm telling you in advance what my response will be before you even begin. What exactly are your arguments? God being a "Man"? Already answered in http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id60.htm
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id73.htm
and the rest of Mmormonism: Section 1.

You simply can't be lazy in your research. What kind of person pronounces judgment upon an entire religion without taking the time to ascertain if the religion's claims are valid?

To reiterate, I'm telling you right now, I'm going to be using my own writings found in the references I've provided when responding to ALL of your arguments. If you don't want to be whacked whenever you use an argument that's already been addressed and resolved; it's best to make sure it isn't present or not satisfactory resolved in my book.

Oh, and btw, I DO say God was once a "man." If there's nothing wrong with God the Son once being a "man" neither should it be a problem if God the Father was also once a "man." After all, the Son is the EXACT REPLICA of the Father and did WHATEVER the Father did.

If you think Hos 11:9; Num 23:19; Ps 50:21 & 1 Sam 15:29 say otherwise; then just try and use them and let's see what happens.

It's been a while since anyone's tried to debate me about religion. I kinda miss it.

I'm a little curious why you would be interested in telling me how to persuade more Mormons. I mean, according to your religion you're giving me advice on how to win souls to perdition. Surely not a worthwhile activity, even if your advice were entirely on the mark.

I challenge you to type out what you admire about Mormons and the LDS faith; it's your turn.

Off the top of my head, there's the family values stuff (which can also be said of Jews, Confucians, etc.). And storing up lots of food is genuinely good advice.

Now, for Watson: I'm curious why you think Mormonism can be considered a "branch" of Christianity equal to Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy. That seems analogous to a Mahdist promoting Mahdism to equality with Sunni and Shi'a Islam. The JWs would seem to have as good a claim to being a form of Christianity as Mormonism. However, I can't examine what you say in those sections because the book you linked appears to be the only part of your site other than the homepage which will display on my computer, possibly because I'm on a Mac.

More to follow.

Classification-wise, there's no doubt Mormonism is a separate branch of Christianity. It, like the other three branches, fully accept all the central Christian teachings that are found in the Bible. Where the four branches disagree are on doctrines and practices that are ABSENT in the Bible. IOW, the areas of disagreements are on extra-biblical issues.

These can easily be seen by identifying the unique differentials of each branch:

EASTERN ORTHODOXY: Equality of the Patriarchates, no filioque clause, additional Scriptures beyond the 66 of the Protestant Bible.

ROMAN CATHOLICISM: Monarchical supremacy by apostolic succession of the Bishop of Rome over all of Christendom, additional Scriptures beyond the Protestant Bible.

PROTESTANTISM: Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, the Bible is superior to the church.

MORMONISM: Latter-day prophets by Restoration, additional Scriptures beyond the Protestant Bible, a rational theodicy and cosmology.

None of the other three branches believe any of these unique differentials.

Honest examination shows virtually ALL areas of disagreement between the different branches stem from these unique differentials, unique practices and biblical interpretations.

Not once in 20 years of debates has anyone been able to show me differently.

Can Mormons use the Bible to prove God the Father used to be a mortal entity in an ancestral universe? Of course not. It's an unbiblical doctrine just as the alternative of an aseitical deity is also unbiblical since the Bible NEVER explains what God was doing prior to creating the universe or where he came from.

A common error opponents of Mormonism make is they confuse unbiblical with anti-biblical. Just because something is absent in the Bible doesn't mean it is against the Bible's teachings. 2 + 2 = 4. No one disputes this, but since it's absent in the Bible, does it necessarily follow it then is anti-biblical?

If you're having problems just click on the page links. I placed the entire book on the web.

All Romney needs to do is point out that Utah, which has tons of Mormons, is as red as any red state, which puts it in the same boat as southern states, which are red as any red as well.

I don't see how Southerners and Mormons (Utah) can believe in the same thing politially and not get along.

A.J.-

I'm giving you pointers on how to approach Mormons because promoting ecumenical harmony is in everyone's best interest. Reaching a spirit of understanding is most definitely a worthwhile activity, attaining a free market of ideas of sorts. That way, each individual can evaluate the beliefs of each church clearly and make a decision based upon the dictates of his or her own conscience. "Tolerance" is a word that has been overused by liberals and has lost its cachet, but it's still an important word that applies here. Let me assure you that we don't believe that all people who are not members of our church are bound for perdition. We might feel that our path is the most correct one, but so do the members of all churches. That doesn't mean that a person who chooses a different path is evil to the core, or even evil at all. I fully believe that a Baptist who lives a good life and follows all your church's precepts will be meted a just reward by a perfect God and will not be destined for perdition. Thus, if you were to successfully convert a Mormon to your faith, in all honesty in my heart of hearts, I might feel that soul is a bit misguided, but he or she is definitely not bound for hell. Sharing insights with others as to the best methods of approaching Mormons is not counterproductive; rather, it is the stuff of responsible proselyting. I have attended Baptist congregations before, while traveling in areas with no LDS meetings on Sunday. From what I heard, I at least know that cooperation is possible, and the Baptist road is certainly not the road to Perdition. My friend Nick who served an LDS mission in Georgia is a convert to the LDS church. He was a former Lutheran who first became interested in my church due to the long anti-Mormon rants of his pastor. (George was curious...) Of his own free will, he asked me for a Book of Mormon, read and prayed about it, and the rest is history. Additionally, he has shared with me how the persecution he was subjected to since joining (by his family members and former friends) has done nothing but solidify his resolve and belief. Thus, it is a case study in how NOT to approach this matter. I'm proud of you for writing a few things you admire about the LDS people. You earn several Brownie points in srm913's book for that. You've started on the right track. Keep it up. If you ever run into the LDS missionaries again, start on that track. If you do so, I'm sure the missionaries will react positively and you can have a productive discussion in every way. God speed. -srm913

As much as I’d love to give this strange new niceness concept a try, I’ve got to start by pointing out your rudeness and presumption in upbraiding me because of an alleged "lack of research" and that I look foolish, lazy, etc. Frankly, nothing I’ve read in your book so far is anything I haven’t seen Mormons argue before. If you think the fact that I began at the first-level arguments, rather than immediately resorting to the full body what I know and all the arguments I’ve come up with or gotten from others proves I’ve never encountered anything more, your #56 (in which you pretended not to have any idea why I would view the foundational Mormon view of God as an insult to His dignity) must prove something similar of you.

Now with that said, we have a little more prolegomena based on the introductory materials to your book. In your " Warning to Non-Mormons, you write:

God is always known as the God of Truth. Rejecting Truth means rejecting God. Never reject what is true (John 8:43-47) since nothing can triumph against the Truth (2 Cor 13:8)… True acceptance of Jesus necessitates accepting his true Gospel

This is true, apart from your presumption that the true Gospel is Mormonism, and I would ask you and all others to keep this in mind yourselves, and consider whether you might be wrong. Mormons I’ve met have argued that Mormonism must be Christian because they have the name Jesus Christ in the name of their organization. One missionary even pointed to a (rather Aryan-looking) picture of Jesus they had in their cardboard tri-fold as proof of their status as genuine Christians. The answer is as you said: to reject what Scripture teaches of God is to reject God and reject Christ.

I should add here that we must be all the more eager to know the truth because of the warnings Scripture gives. E.g., Acts 20:28-31, Galatians 1:8, and so on; I’m sure you could multiply examples on your own. Matthew 7 is especially important, in that the issue is whether you follow a false prophet.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

This shows your error when you write:

Why then do anti-Mormons think we care if Joseph Smith drank and smoked the day before his death, or if he had a temper, or that he booted an abusive and hostile minister?

Whether you care or not, you ought to, because this is exactly where Christ directs our attention: their fruits. Hypocrisy is especially relevant, because weeping and gnashing of teeth is their portion (Matthew 24:51).

There’s something else in the Warning I find interesting.

No one can be brainwashed by a book. We know we can’t convince everyone or even one person to join the church. It is only God’s Spirit who converts. We are looking for the elect of God, the ones God has chosen who belong to him… We know who they are by their readiness in accepting the gospel (Matt 13:15-16; John 6:37; 8:47; Acts 13:48; 17:2; 2 Th 2:13; 1 Pet 1:2; 1 Jn 4:6) since they know the voice of Jesus (John 10:4-5,14,26-29) and recognize it in the gospel when it is brought to them

This is the Biblical teaching. It is not, however, the Mormon teaching. It’s surprising to see a book advocating Mormonism contain a paragraph like this: you’re the first Mormon I’ve encountered who even seemed able to understand it, let alone believe it. Elsewhere, however, you wrote:

For example, the Mormon belief in the pre-existence means God is not responsible for undeserved suffering (e.g., Why did the baby suffer cancer and die?). The Mormon belief in the uncreated intelligence which is the foundation of our spirits means God is not responsible for our failures and evil deeds, which he would be if he created us ex nihilo. The Mormon belief in the uncreated nature of Good and Evil means God is not responsible for the existence of evil because it pre-existed God as God.

This isn't compatible with your paragraph in the Warning. If God isn't "responsible" for our failures, He cannot be responsible for the greatest of all failures, the failure to believe the Gospel. Now in Protestant theological debates you can get into some nice distinctions between active and passive reprobation, but any way you cut it, if the elect are elect because God chose them and converted them by His Spirit, it follows that the non-elect got that way because they were not chosen and not converted by the Spirit.

And some stronger statements of similar themes here.

So I’m curious which you actually believe, and if you believe the Biblical doctrine how you reconcile it with the rest of Mormonism.

Here you announce your willingness to accept modern source criticism. Jesus ascribed the Torah, not to a Yahwist, an Elohist, etc., but to Moses (see for example Mark 12:26 and John 5:46). If you’ll believe scholarly speculations (many centuries after the fact) over the Lord, why bother with any of it? You also said you didn’t care who wrote Titus and 2 Peter, they were inspired anyway. The author of Titus claims to be the Apostle Paul and the author of 2 Peter claims to be the Apostle Simon Peter; if the books were written by other men yet are inspired, then the Holy Spirit inspired deception, which would be somewhat problematic. On the general subject of scholarship, this is simply an exercise in well-poisoning.

But let’s move on to the largest matter: who God is.

First, the Isaiah passage. Your counter-argument is one I’ve seen before, as I said. You seem inordinately proud of having written it all yourself without relying on other’s works, but your answer is, so far as I’m seen, pretty much the stock reply to what is, admittedly, a standard objection. A note on standard objections: the reason so many arguments against Mormonism originated so early and continue more or less unmodified is that they are obvious and that the attempts at answering them have been so weak compared to their strength and nature. That’s the case here.

For background, some of the relevant verses:

(43:10-11) "You are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour."

(44:6) "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

(44:8) "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."

(45:5-6) ""I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else."

(45:22) "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else."

The Mormon answer is that this is in the context of denunciation of false gods, and includes repeated statements that God created the universe. And both observations are true, as far as they go, but hardly mitigate the force of these verses they way they would need.

Suppose a father had prohibited his children to do something, and let’s say something in itself innocuous. Since you’re a Mormon I’ll say drinking coffee. Then somebody on T.V. talks about the health benefits of coffee. So the children decide to drink coffee contrary to their father’s rules. So the man, to reassert his authority and meaning only to say that he is the only father in the household, declares that: 1) The man on T.V. is not their father. 2) He built the house with his own money and sweat equity. 3) He is the only father ever, there are no other fathers beside him, was never any father before him, will never be any fathers after him (but even as he says he is the last father ever he hopes his sons will give him grandchildren), and that he knows of no other fathers. Clearly this last claim is absurd, and ludicrously in excess of what the argument intends to prove. Even if the man were a Mormon apologist who frequently deals with the Isaiah issue, he would never speak in this manner.

It becomes obvious that Jehovah's denial of the existence of other gods in Isa 43-46 wasn't a blanket statement but was indicative of the understanding of the people who believed in the existence of certain gods such as Astoreth, Ba'al, Baal-berith, Baalzebub, Chemosh, Dagon, Milcom, Moloch, Nisroch, Marduk, Tiamat and the Babylonian deities. Jehovah was denying the existence of the gods represented by the ANE idols.

That such grand statements would mean so little simply cannot be credited.

Here is another comparison. A man, whose wife suspects his fidelity, declares that she's the only woman he ever loved or ever would love. But you see, her suspicions were aroused by Jennifer, who the man finds ugly and avoids, and so none of it actually applies to Kate and Sarah, who he actually is carrying on with. Is this honest?

Jehovah (YHWH) wasn't talking about the presence or absence of other Gods in other universes which wouldn't even make sense since he placed the setting of his denial in this universe with his frequent reference to his creating the heavens and the earth.

Nothing in the text would support making this universe the limits of the claims. Grammatically and logically, the only one tied to the heavens and the Earth is 45:6, "from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me." If this were the only relevant verse, or if all the other verses set a range within which there is none beside Him, your case might be credible. But this is not the case. And if you did try to hang your case on this verse, it would prove more than you intend to prove, since the frame of reference is clearly planetary, while you have claimed somewhere on your site that Mormons deny God rules this planet only. Instead, you say He rules the whole universe. Which still demeans Him by asserting an infinite space He does not rule, namely all the other universes, and so doesn’t make the doctrine that much more palatable.

Another verse, 2 Samuel 7:22, "Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears."

You comment:

David was praising God and his wisdom and power. He contrasted God with the gods of the other nations such as Egypt (vv. 18-23). Notice the comparison was between YHWH and idolatry, not God and Gods in other universes.

There is absolutely no reason in the text to make "none like thee" mean "none like thee compared to idols". False gods are only tenuously present, in reference to the other nations, but these are not introduced until God’s uniqueness has already been asserted. Now, this idea you’re imposing on the text and the other texts, that you can be unique "compared to" one thing but not another, is simply a misunderstanding of the concept. When David says there are none like God, it’s unfaithful to the text to make none mean some.

If "none like thee" isn’t comprehensively true, David was not praising God correctly, but offering flattery and sycophancy.

Later on the same page, you "answer" every New Testament assertion of monotheism by asserting that if we take the verse to mean what it says we would have to reject the divinity of Christ. But this presupposes the antibiblical Mormon division between The Father and the Son. But the Word was not only with God, the Word was God. For example, commenting on John 17:3, you say:

Consequently, since this statement of Jesus doesn't exclude him, neither should it exclude others from being "God" or else he isn't "God" as well.

The only problem is, if "others" are not excluded from being God, "the ONLY true God", which is what Jesus said, just does make any sense.

One New Testament verse you neglected:

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:3)

Note, please, that in verse 1 we see an obvious reference to Genesis 1:1, which says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth." In John we have an "in the beginning" and now we have a creation account. But notice: John changed what was created. The Genesis, all we see being created was "the heaven and the Earth", but John has changed it to "all things", and then he emphasizes his expansion by denying the contrary: "without Him was not anything made that was made". If Genesis left room for things outside the heaven and the Earth which God did not create, John is careful to close that room and say there is nothing which the Word did not make. Are there other universes? The Word made them, and without the Word they were not made.

Now, back when I was an Arminian, I was troubled by the fact that if Paul had intended, in Romans 9 and elsewhere, to say what I wanted him to be saying he did a pretty bad job of it. On the other hand, if Paul really did intend to teach predestination, I could hardly imagine clearer language than what he already used. What more could Paul have said? So let me ask you: if God intended to tell us that He is indeed unique regardless of how far you wish to range, could it be expressed in clearer or stronger terms than we already find? Would you let God say that? The only thing I can think might be lacking is a specific condemnation of the very outs you’re using. But then Joseph Smith would’ve thought up some other heresy, making the passage irrelevant both to the original audience and all subsequent generations. So do you expect the Bible to list everything single error a person might ever come up with? What more could Isaiah have said?

What makes this worse is the fact that there is no good reason why Mormon theology deserves such commitment over against the plain reading of the text. As noted Joseph Smith had a character not in keeping with a prophetic calling. From money-digging (using the very same paraphernalia which would later be associated with the translation of the plates) to taking other men’s wives to falling for the Kinderhook Plates to the extreme cultishness of the group he founded, everything points away from his being a prophet. Yes, I said he founded a cult. Your criticism of the very category of "cult" amounts to a big fallacy of equivocation. You quoted a dictionary entry similar to this one,but with a crucial alteration. You took the numbers out, making multiple definitions appear as if they were all parts of one. But this is just misdirection. If someone says you practice scary mind control, it doesn’t even make a proper tu quoque to say that he practices organized worship and ritual. In fact, even answering the charge like that is somewhat culty in itself. Regular groups would just point out all the common characteristics of cults they don’t have.

Lest I be misunderstood, although the organizations led by Smith and Young were among the most disturbing and dangerous cults in American history, most of the cultishness has faded away over the years.

Another mark against Smith is the fact that he depicts a civilization in pre-Columbian America that just wasn’t there. I see you have a chapter on archeology, but it’s not online. I’m willing to hazard a guess that in that chapter you also rehearse the standard replies to the standard objections, and as before, the replies are too weak to bear up under the weight of the original objections. Must we hear of how "horses" really means deer or tapirs or some other unhorselike creature, and how "swords" really means spiked clubs?

It's been a while since anyone's tried to debate me about religion. I kinda miss it.

Theology is the Queen of the Sciences.

Classification-wise, there's no doubt Mormonism is a separate branch of Christianity. It, like the other three branches, fully accept all the central Christian teachings that are found in the Bible. Where the four branches disagree are on doctrines and practices that are ABSENT in the Bible. IOW, the areas of disagreements are on extra-biblical issues.

What I meant is not that Mormonism should understood as part of Protestantism or something like that (frankly we don’t want you -- well, actually we do, but only as converts away from Mormonism). Rather, first, it should not be understood as a branch at all. As I’ve demonstrated, Mormonism does reject central Christian teaching in the Bible. Second, it hardly rates as comparable to the three main branches. That’s what I meant by the comparison to the Mahdists. They’re a comparatively small, recent offshoot which rejects a foundational Muslim doctrine (in their case the finality of Mohammed as prophet).

If you're having problems just click on the page links. I placed the entire book on the web.

I mean the pages on Protestants, Catholics, Baha’i, Carbohydrates, and so on.

Anyway, at this point I’ve written all I care to for now.

My opinion of you just got a lot higher. It now appears you’re very intelligent and capable of rational discussion. Why then didn’t you start off this way instead of the typical anti-Mormon slander so common among others? It would’ve avoided the ugliness of our earlier exchanges.

I)
I completely agree on the importance of determining the authenticity of prophets. What then are their fruits? Since it is entirely possible for people who claim to be prophets to do good works, and even perform miracles; the fruits of genuine prophets must be uniquely qualifying. For me, Joseph Smith’s fruits are his formulation of the only theodicy that logically refutes atheism, a cosmology that avoids the two fatal flaws of Aristotle’s Unmoved Mover and additional Scripture with a Christology exactly identical with the New Testament.

I do NOT view aberrant or moral behavior as grounds for automatically invalidating a prophet’s credibility. Prophets are human; they’re not infallible. Biblical prophets like Moses and Samuel did things much worse than the worst thing Joseph Smith ever did. If they retain credibility despite their sins, then the same standard must be granted Joseph Smith. Here’s something to back me up. It was initially created by Arden Eby but I added onto it:

Are prophets perfect and inerrant?

Prophets are human, not perfect or infallible (1 Ne 19:6; D&C 5:21; 6:18-19; 6:64:7).

1. Can Prophets lie?

a. Abraham - Gen 12:10-20.
b. Isaac - Gen 26:7.
c. Jacob - Gen 27:19, 24, 32, 35.
d. Jeremiah - Jer 38:24-28.
e. David - 1 Kg 2:8-9.
f. Micaiah - 1 Kg 22:14-15; 2 Chr 18:13-14.
g. Elisha - 2 Kg 6:19; 8:10, 14-15.
h. Peter - Matt 26:69_75.

2. Can a Prophet get drunk?

Noah - Gen 9:21.

3. Can a Prophet, for a small fee, use his supernatural powers to tell where to find lost animals?

Samuel - 1 Sam 9:6-8, 20.

4. Can a Prophet, for a large fee, use his supernatural powers?

Elisha - 2 Kg 8:8-14.

5. Can a Prophet have false prophecies?

a. Jonah - Destruction of Nineveh (Jonah 3:1-10).
b. Ezekiel - Nebuchadnezzar will capture the Island city of Tyre (Ezek 26:2-14).

6. Can a Prophet gamble?

Samson - Judges 14:12-20.

7. Can a Prophet be angry at God?

Jonah - Jonah 4:1, 9.

8. Can a Prophet curse children?

Elisha - 2 Kg 2:23-24.

9. Can a Prophet desire vengeance?

a. Psalmist - Ps 137:8-9.
b. Jeremiah - Jer 18:19-23.

10. Can a Prophet contradict a former prophet?

a. Moses & Jesus on divorce (Deut 24:1-4 cf Matt 19:3-8).
b. The writer of 2 Sam and 1 Chr on who caused David to sin? (2 Sam 24:1 cf 1 Chr 21:1).
c. Moses & Ezekiel on generational punishment (Ex 20:5; 34:7 cf Ezek 18:20).
d. Moses & Paul on God’s justification of the wicked (Ex 23:7 cf Rom 4:5).
e. Moses & Paul on circumcision (Gen 17:1-17 cf Rom 4:6-12; Gal 6:15).
f. Moses & Paul on the Aaronic/Levitical Priesthood (Ex 40:12-15; Num 25:10-14 cf Heb 7:12).

11. Could a Prophet fail to understand a revelation?

a. Peter - Acts 10:3, 17.
b. Paul - 1 Cor 13:9-12.

12. Can a Prophet give counsel not approved by the Lord?

Nathan - 2 Sam 7:1-6.

13. Can a Prophet worship false gods?

Solomon - 1 Kgs 11:4-10.

14. Can a Prophet accept a position as the chief of magicians, astrologers, and soothsayers?

Daniel - Dan 5:11-12.

15. Can a Prophet be immoral?

a. Samson - visits a prostitute (Judges 16:1).
b. David - his adulterous affair with Bath-sheba (2 Sam 11:2-5).

16. Could a Prophet give two contradictory prophecies?

Micaiah - 1 Kgs 22:14-17.

17. Could a Prophet lie to another Prophet in the name of the Lord?

The old prophet in Beth-el - 1 Kgs 13:11-21.

18. Can a Prophet accuse God of deception and betrayal?

Jeremiah - Jer 20:7.

19. Could a Prophet go out in public naked?

a. Isaiah - Isa 20:2-3.
b. Saul - 1 Sam 19:24.
c. Micah - Mic 1:8.
d. David (semi-naked) - 2 Sam 6:14, 20.

20. Can Prophets attribute doubtful characteristics to God?

a. God is hot-tempered - Ex 32:10-12, 14; Num 14:11-16; 16:20-22, 45; 24:3-4; 2 Sam 6:6-7.
b. God hardens peoples’ hearts to destroy them - Ex 4:21; 7:2-4; 10:1-2; 14:17, 27-28; Josh 11:20.
c. God punishes David for a sin he “moved” him to commit - 1 Sam 24:1, 10, 15, 17.
d. God causes prophets to lie - 1 Kings 22:13-23.
e. God deceives prophets - Ezek 14:9; 1 Kg 22:13-23.
f. God is the cause of evil in a city - Amos 3:6.
g. God gave laws and judgments which were not good, including child sacrifice - Lev 27:28-29; Num 31:40-41; Judges 11:30-32, 34, 39; 2 Sam 21:1-9; Ezek 20:25-26,31.
h. God commands and condones slavery - Gen 9:25-27; Lev 25:44-46; 1 Cor 7:21-24; Eph 6:5-8; Col 3:22-25; 1 Tim 6:1-2; Tit 2:9-10; 1 Pet 2:18-25.
i. God sends evil spirits to influence men - 1 Sam 16:14-15; 18:10.
j. God will delude men - 2 Thes 2:11.
k. God changes his mind - Ex 32:14; Gen 22:17/Deut 28:61-68; 1 Chr 21:15; Amos 7:3,6; Jon 3:9,10; Jer 26:3,13; 2 Sam 24:16.
l. God orders ethnic cleansing and genocide - Deut 2:26-35; 7:2-5, 16; 20:16-18; Josh 1-11; 1 Sam 15:2-3.
m. God kills the innocent - Josh 7:1, 5, 24-25; 1 Sam 1,10,15,17.
n. God gets mad when obeyed - Num 22:20-22.

21. Can a prophet deny Christ in a moment of stress?

Peter denies Christ - Matt. 26:34-35, 69-75

22. Can a prophet wish he was never born?

Jeremiah - Jer 20:14-18.

23. Can a Prophet call God a liar?

Jeremiah - Jer 15:18.

24. Can a Prophet kill?

a. Moses - Ex 2:12-14.
b. Samuel - 1 Sam 15:33.

25. Can Prophets argue and disagree with each other?

a. Paul & Peter - Gal 2:11-14; 2 Pet 3:15-16.
b. Paul & Barnabas - Acts 13:2; 15:36-39.

26. Can Prophets be prejudiced?

a. Jesus - Matt 15:22-27.
b. Jonah - Jonah 1:2-3; 4:1.
c. Peter - Gal 2:11-14.

27. Can Prophets be arrogant, boastful, cowardly, cursing, stubborn, doubting, insolent, permissive of abuse, deceitful, hateful to spouse, and having a fierce anger?

a. Moses - Ex 4:10-14; 5:22-23; 32:19-20, 26-28, 30; Num 20:8-12.
b. Peter - Matt 16:21-23; 26:69-75; John 13:8-9; 18:10-11.
c. Abraham - Gen 16:6.
d. Jacob - Gen 27:12, 35; 29:30-31.

The point I’m making is prophets aren’t infallible. They are ordinary humans with the same weaknesses (D&C 5:21; 6:18-19) and trials we have but possess extraordinary callings and spiritual endowments.

II)

As you very well know, Mormonism does not believe in predestination in the classical sense of guaranteed salvation regardless of our actions. We prefer using the word “foreordination” to avoid confusion since we believe it is possible for one to rebel and later reject salvation. IOW, we don’t believe the “once saved; always saved” doctrine often heard from some Protestant quarters. The only exception is when a divine pronouncement is made attesting to a specific person’s salvation which we call, “Having one’s calling and election made sure.” When God says a specific person is guaranteed salvation even though they’re still alive and capable of sinning; we believe him.

The Elect are those whose uncreated nature is such that they will always recognize and accept Christ’s true gospel when it is presented to them in a genuine free-will milieu. God recognized them for what they are while in the pre-existence and chose them to become his “children” (in the additional sense).

A common theodical problem among “Traditional Christians” is how does God chose between two spirits whom to become elect and “saved” and whom not to chose and be “damned” while maintaining his all-good, all-powerful nature? Mormonism rejects the notion it was an arbitrary ‘coin-toss’ but believe it was a determination based upon each entity’s inherent qualities that aren’t dependent upon God. This then absolves God of being ultimately responsible for their failure to be chosen among the “Elect.”

Claiming God’s omniscience includes knowing the future of each individual doesn’t quite cut it since (1) divulgent foreknowledge violates our free-will; (2) foreknowledge of a coming evil and not doing anything to prevent it is an evil by itself. For it to be perpetuated by an “all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful deity” makes it all the more horrible.

We then just become actors in a pre-determined play, with an already-determined outcome and a culpable God since he has the power (omnipotent) to change our fate that he foresaw (omniscient). Knowing in advance one will be condemned and tortured in hell for all eternity and not lifting a finger to change that person’s fate, not even a miniscule nudge in the right direction; makes God into a horrible monster. Why would he even let these people be born if they are only created to suffer torture for all eternity?

No, clearly something is wrong with traditional predestination – God becomes an amoral monster instead of an all-powerful, all-good God.

We believe it is possible for an elect to willingly remove himself from salvation by an act of rebellion. Take me for example. I believe I am one of the “Elect” because I immediately recognized Christ’s Gospel when it was presented to me. I also absolutely KNOW, without doubt God is real and Jesus really is his Son because of an answered prayer.

Despite this knowledge and certitude; I decided to rebel against God in protest of the hardship he has seen fit to give me. All my life I’ve striven to serve him and follow Christ. I discontinued my education just so that I can study the Scriptures and put him and his kingdom first. And what did I get for striving to serve him? A dead wife, multiple business failures, repeated loss of my life savings, no money, no house, no job, poor health, depression and isolation.

So yes, I rebelled. If serving him gets me nothing but failure and pain; perhaps life would be better if I turn my back on him. I knew if I died while in a state of rebelliousness; I can never be saved and yet, I didn’t care. Of course I always knew I’ll eventually return to him, but the bitterness was still there.

I hope you understand what I’m trying to say. The elect can rebel and lose their salvation. Please study the uncreated intelligence concept some more because it is a brilliant idea. It is the only logical way to absolve God of being ultimately culpable for moral evil. And it definitely doesn’t contradict the biblical teaching of the elect.

You said:
“This isn't compatible with your paragraph in the Warning. If God isn't "responsible" for our failures, He cannot be responsible for the greatest of all failures, the failure to believe the Gospel. Now in Protestant theological debates you can get into some nice distinctions between active and passive reprobation, but any way you cut it, if the elect are elect because God chose them and converted them by His Spirit, it follows that the non-elect got that way because they were not chosen and not converted by the Spirit.”

Yes and no. You must place the uncreated nature of the elect within the milieu of the pre-existence. That is where they were chosen – before they were born (Jer 1:5). They then become Elect because of their inherent nature, their monad, the core of their being. Their inherent nature is such that they will willingly follow God’s command and recognize and accept his Gospel when given a chance.

God is then ABSOLVED of being ultimately responsible for why some will be saved and others won’t be. After all, is it just, is it fair and is it right, for God to punish those who won’t be saved when it is HIS fault they weren’t saved because he didn’t choose them? Of course not. Then the only way to resolve this dilemma would be to have the selection criteria to be outside the domain of God (i.e., the uncreated intelligence – the core of our being that God himself can’t create or destroy). God is then blameless for punishing the wicked since they then are ultimately responsible for their punishment.

III)

You said:
“Here you announce your willingness to accept modern source criticism. Jesus ascribed the Torah, not to a Yahwist, an Elohist, etc., but to Moses (see for example Mark 12:26 and John 5:46). If you’ll believe scholarly speculations (many centuries after the fact) over the Lord, why bother with any of it? You also said you didn’t care who wrote Titus and 2 Peter, they were inspired anyway. The author of Titus claims to be the Apostle Paul and the author of 2 Peter claims to be the Apostle Simon Peter; if the books were written by other men yet are inspired, then the Holy Spirit inspired deception, which would be somewhat problematic. On the general subject of scholarship, this is simply an exercise in well-poisoning.”

I differentiate what Jesus may have actually said with what is recorded. Don’t forget, we Mormons don’t believe in biblical inerrancy when it is defined to include absolute perfection of every kind including grammatical and typographic. Our theology allows for errors in doctrines and practices – and also allows for corrections when additional information is given.

As a Mormon, I am obligated to accept “whatever is true and whatever is right” regardless of the consequences and the source - and that includes science. I once made the mistake of placing a theology above empirical evidence and won’t make that mistake again. It is perfectly possible to attribute writings to Moses without Moses actually writing them. After all, he could’ve hardly written about his own death and what happened afterwards. Neither is it plausible for the “humblest man on earth” to tell everyone he was the “humblest man on earth.”

“Just as King Authur pulled out Excalibur, so shall …” or “What is the moral of the story when Homer went with Apu to India?” Just because characters are described in an assertive way doesn’t mean the characters themselves are genuine or actually did what was said of them (e.g. Noah and the ark, Jonah and the whale). If God intended every statement Jesus or any other biblical prophet said were absolute truths; he wouldn’t have given us demonstrable facts and replicable science (e.g., the mustard seed being the smallest of all the seeds; Christ getting angry at a fig tree for not having any figs when it was out of season, etc.).

IV)

You said:
“You seem inordinately proud of having written it all yourself without relying on other’s works,

I acted that way because I thought you were just another typical “know-nothing” anti-Mormon, bereft of original ideas and wholly dependent upon other so-called “experts” on Mormonism. It was a way of warning not to trifle with someone who has spent an enormous amount of time researching and studying the issues. Now that I know you better; I’ll dispense with that. We both can see the other is credible and can thus maintain a high level of dialog.

V)

You said:
“The Mormon answer is that this is in the context of denunciation of false gods, and includes repeated statements that God created the universe. And both observations are true, as far as they go, but hardly mitigate the force of these verses they way they would need.
Suppose a father had prohibited his children to do something, and let’s say something in itself innocuous. Since you’re a Mormon I’ll say drinking coffee. Then somebody on T.V. talks about the health benefits of coffee. So the children decide to drink coffee contrary to their father’s rules. So the man, to reassert his authority and meaning only to say that he is the only father in the household, declares that: 1) The man on T.V. is not their father. 2) He built the house with his own money and sweat equity. 3) He is the only father ever, there are no other fathers beside him, was never any father before him, will never be any fathers after him (but even as he says he is the last father ever he hopes his sons will give him grandchildren), and that he knows of no other fathers. Clearly this last claim is absurd, and ludicrously in excess of what the argument intends to prove. Even if the man were a Mormon apologist who frequently deals with the Isaiah issue, he would never speak in this manner.”

Actually no. one must not overlook WHAT the descriptions of these other ANE deities were. They were described as “god, lord, ruler, source of all life, creator of all, father of all, son of … , daughter of … , rider of clouds, lord of the wind, etc.” IOW, the descriptions of these false deities were EXACTLY IDENTICAL with how YHWH was described. When this is realized; it then becomes obvious why this portion of Isaiah is described as the “Challenge to the False Gods.”

Exclusivity statements must ALWAYS be taken in context. “Melissa is the smartest student;” “Carmen’s the only manager;” “There’s only one king” are all exclusive statements but it would be ludicrous to disregard their context and make them out into blanket statements covering all time and in all places.

The Bible isn’t a legal document that tries to cover all conditions. Isaiah’s context is more than sufficient to show these exclusivity passages are incapable of disproving Mormonism.

Furthermore, claiming these as a declarative exclusivity creates enormous problems since it faces the insurmountable internal passages of the Bible that prove it has an evolving theology. What happened to the earlier Council of the Gods, where El rules over other Gods?

Please see http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id163.htm and place close attention to the references in the endnotes. Here are the abbreviations: http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id153.htm.

Note that not one of the references come from LDS sources – all are from the leading Protestant, Catholic and secular scholars.

The Bible then becomes a contradictory book if one were to insist on adhering to your standards. Sorry, I believe the concept of who God was evolved over time, and I happen to enjoy the company I’m in.

What I find amusing is your insistence that it’s “demeaning” to God to claim God doesn’t rule ALL the infinite universes instead of the Mormon belief God can create and rule AN infinite number of universes. Playing around with transfinite numbers is quite hazardous. Somehow you have in mind an absolute and exclusive philosophical infinity whereas we utilize a mathematical infinity. You can’t seriously tell me God will NEVER allow any of his children to become like him and create universes of their own? Somehow the “becoming like him” and theosis passages don’t mean much, eh? A single offspring of God who creates a universe automatically shatters God’s dominion and demeans him?

Infinity is infinity. It can’t be subtracted or added upon by any finite value. Why should God CARE if there are other deities ruling over other universes? Is he greedy? Doesn’t having an infinite number of universes satisfy him enough that he needs to take away from others to make him feel good? If this doesn’t apply to his own offspring (let’s not kid ourselves – if God wants to make the sanctified into replicas of himself – he most certainly can – and that’s exactly what he repeatedly teaches in the NT) why should it apply to others?

FWIW, it is never demeaning to have an accurate picture of God. I happen to think it’s demeaning to describe God in a manner that is false. And that includes denying his materiality.

Lastly, the Bible’s cosmology is universal and not multiversal (truth be told it’s only planetary but what the heck – let’s increase by 10100). We find no indication the biblical prophets had any concept of the Multiverse, containing an infinite number of universes. Consequently, they can only describe God in a manner in which they knew. Incidentally, this is why NO biblical figure described God in a platonic, nonmaterial way since none of them were philosophers. IOW, one blind man’s description of the elephant seems appropriate, no? It doesn’t make it wrong, only incomplete.

Please see http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id27.htm where I discuss all doctrines related to Jesus.

VI)

I know you only tangentially touched upon the LDS doctrine of exaltation when you mentioned God’s uniqueness but I suggest you examine what I wrote on the matter since I’ve already addressed it. See http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id33.htm.

VII)

You said:
Your criticism of the very category of "cult" amounts to a big fallacy of equivocation. You quoted a dictionary entry similar to this one,but with a crucial alteration. You took the numbers out, making multiple definitions appear as if they were all parts of one. But this is just misdirection. If someone says you practice scary mind control, it doesn’t even make a proper tu quoque to say that he practices organized worship and ritual. In fact, even answering the charge like that is somewhat culty in itself. Regular groups would just point out all the common characteristics of cults they don’t have.

Granted. Good point. What I did was a categorical description. It was never meant to be portions of a whole.

VIII)

You said:
Another mark against Smith is the fact that he depicts a civilization in pre-Columbian America that just wasn’t there. I see you have a chapter on archeology, but it’s not online. I’m willing to hazard a guess that in that chapter you also rehearse the standard replies to the standard objections, and as before, the replies are too weak to bear up under the weight of the original objections. Must we hear of how "horses" really means deer or tapirs or some other unhorselike creature, and how "swords" really means spiked clubs?

Actually, I don’t believe archaeology will ever be able to prove the Book of Mormon narrative. Provide possible and probably evidences? Certainly. But never solid proof. In fact, I don’t want science to ever prove the historicity of the BoM. The reason for this is due to the consequences of such proof because the BoM’s transmission is so unlike that of the Bible.

It is possible to prove the historicity of the Bible without also proving its religious message but it isn’t possible to do the same with the BoM simply because the latter hasn’t had a historical transmission (i.e. it wasn’t handed down through the generations). This is why if science ever proves its historicity; everything else about it is proven as well by relation. Joseph Smith then becomes a true prophet; Jesus then becomes the Christ and God and Heavenly Father is then proven real by association. Science then proves the existence of God and free will is destroyed. All sins then become crimes against knowledge instead of faith and repentance becomes much more difficult, perhaps impossible. Simply put, not a good idea.

IX)

You said:
What I meant is not that Mormonism should understood as part of Protestantism or something like that (frankly we don’t want you -- well, actually we do, but only as converts away from Mormonism). Rather, first, it should not be understood as a branch at all. As I’ve demonstrated, Mormonism does reject central Christian teaching in the Bible. Second, it hardly rates as comparable to the three main branches. That’s what I meant by the comparison to the Mahdists. They’re a comparatively small, recent offshoot which rejects a foundational Muslim doctrine (in their case the finality of Mohammed as prophet).

If not a branch, what then? We’re definitely not Protestant, Catholic or Eastern Orthodox but share with all three the common teachings of the Bible. Besides, you most surely haven’t “demonstrated” we “reject the central Christian teachings in the Bible.” What we do reject are the central Christian teachings that aren’t found in the Bible but originate from Hellenic philosophy. We don’t have a problem with the Isaiah passes you quoted. We accept them fully. Where we disagree with you is on INTERPRETATION. We say the context and cosmology of the writers can’t be disregarded and you place onto them your own cosmology which encompasses all other universes outside our own. I’m honest enough to admit my bias in extending Second Isaiah’s cosmology to include the entire universe of hundreds of billions of stars in each of the hundreds of billions of galaxies despite the 6th century B.C.E. Near Eastern concept of reality was of a single earth covered by a dome that was below a cosmic water ocean (where rain came from) and whose celestial bodies were attached to the inside of the dome. If I can admit my bias of extending the volume of Second Isaiah’s cosmos by a googol despite there’s no proof he even conceived of such a volume when describing YHWH’s exclusivity; surely you can do likewise by your usage of an absolute infinity?

X)

I discontinued loading the webpage after an unfortunate hard drive crash that wiped out all my files. Life in the computer age, eh?

As for the Baha’I, see http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id62.htm especially endnote 16. The abbreviation for the book is found at http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id135.htm.

Thanks! This was fun.

I)

Something important needs to be emphasized. It doesn’t matter what you think of me, or our earlier exchange, or what you’ve done or given up for your religion (remember that Saul even went so for as to get blood on his hands), or what experiences you’ve had. Jesus says that all who do not hate mother and father and children and friends and self for His sake are unworthy of Him. If you are unwilling to abandon your whole life as valueless, you cannot enter the Kingdom.

II)

I completely agree on the importance of determining the authenticity of prophets. What then are their fruits? Since it is entirely possible for people who claim to be prophets to do good works, and even perform miracles; the fruits of genuine prophets must be uniquely qualifying.

Before we even consider whether an alleged prophet has uniquely qualifying fruits, we should check for obvious disqualifiers.

1. Your list of attacks on true prophets does not succeed in getting Smith off the hook. You have mixed actual moral failures with misunderstandings such as alleged false prophecies and contradictions. The Tyre prophecy was accurate. Ezekiel 26:8 says specifically that Nebuchadnezzar would take a mainland part of Tyre (Tyre, like modern Venice, had a sea part and a mainland part). This is less clear in the KJV, which has "daughters in the field"; the ESV has "daughters on the mainland". The "they" in vs. 12 would naturally seem to refer to Nebuchadnezzar’s army, so it would take a good reason to view it otherwise: the fact that Alexander the Great’s troops did exactly what "they" were predicted to do -- "lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water" -- counts as a good reason, especially since building a causeway out of the rubble left over from Nebuchadnezzar was a non-obvious way to proceed given that Tyre posed no threat to Alexander’s goal of conquering Persia.

I could make similar arguments for most of the others you list. But that would take an inordinate amount of time. Some of them, in fact, don’t even constitute problems that need answering. The problems of Smith’s character are of a worse nature. Specifically, his total lack of repentance. David, for example, not only repented but wrote Psalm 51 about it. Although it isn’t written in the histories that Solomon repented, his later life in general isn’t recorded and there’s good evidence in the Wisdom writings that he did. With Smith, near the end we instead see the infamous Boasting Speech. Never did he renounce the sin of violating his wedding vows and invading others’ marital beds. His youthful occultism and money-digging also impeach his standing as a prophet because there was no clean break between them. The seer-stone he said he used to translate the BoM was the same one he used for money-digging.

2. On the credibility of the civilization depicted in the BoM.

Actually, I don’t believe archaeology will ever be able to prove the Book of Mormon narrative. Provide possible and probably evidences? Certainly. But never solid proof. In fact, I don’t want science to ever prove the historicity of the BoM. The reason for this is due to the consequences of such proof because the BoM’s transmission is so unlike that of the Bible.

It is possible to prove the historicity of the Bible without also proving its religious message but it isn’t possible to do the same with the BoM simply because the latter hasn’t had a historical transmission (i.e. it wasn’t handed down through the generations). This is why if science ever proves its historicity; everything else about it is proven as well by relation. Joseph Smith then becomes a true prophet; Jesus then becomes the Christ and God and Heavenly Father is then proven real by association. Science then proves the existence of God and free will is destroyed. All sins then become crimes against knowledge instead of faith and repentance becomes much more difficult, perhaps impossible. Simply put, not a good idea.

This sounds almost like the Mormon equivalent of the claim God put dinosaur bones in the Earth to test our faith in Creationism.

Discovery of exactly what the BoM says should be there would no more confirm it than what we actually do find, the complete absence of those things, disconfirms it. I can easily conceive of how some details might be confirmed without proving the prophethood of Smith, since Satan could have fed Smith some accurate details to make the deception more believable. After a certain point, this explanation would cease to be credible. Likewise, the complete absence everywhere from the Bering Strait to the Strait of Magellan of anything like the Old World culture depicted ceases to be consistent with any explanation other than the fraudulency of the BoM. I would expect random guesses to do better than Smith did.

3. Smith fell for the Kinderhook Plates. Recent (that is, after the Plates were shown to be of modern manufacture) Mormon apologetics has tried to dispute this by calling William Clayton’s journal into question. I’m not particularly expert on all the arguments back and forth, but there is a great deal of information here. It also covers the Book of Abraham, which, while genuinely ancient, is actually the Book of Breathings and has nothing to do with Abraham.

4. There are various other objections to Smith’s claims which have never, to my knowledge, been answered plausibly, such as the multiple First Vision stories and the fact that the Plates would have been much too heavy for Smith to run home carrying them like he claimed. All of these things together make it altogether unreasonable to think Smith was really a prophet; they certainly make it unreasonable to put forth any effort making his claims square with Isaiah and the other monotheist verses, even if the attempts to reconcile them were plausible, which they are not.

III)

I differentiate what Jesus may have actually said with what is recorded. Don’t forget, we Mormons don’t believe in biblical inerrancy when it is defined to include absolute perfection of every kind including grammatical and typographic. Our theology allows for errors in doctrines and practices – and also allows for corrections when additional information is given.

This was in reply to my citation of Jesus’ sayings which attributed the Torah to Moses. The New Testament has vastly more ancient textual evidence than any contemporary writing, including some which were undoubtedly far more widely read and copied. I think it would be fair to see the hand of Providence in this. So if you think the reading of John 5:47 (which states that Moses wrote of Jesus) is incorrect, you should have some text-critical evidence to back this up. I’m not a textual critic, but I do know the thorough NET notes don’t mention anything. Without such evidence making claims about textual corruption is irresponsible. The alternative argument is to say the very autographs misquoted Jesus, which either abandons inspiration or implies Holy Spirit inspired falsehood (minb).

There’s an irony in this. The whole reason for this is to avoid having to reject the Wellhousen hypothesis so that you can keep what you think is scholarly respectability. But you claim that Jesus can’t have said that Moses wrote the Torah because Moses didn’t, and this presupposes His infallibility, and arguing for something on the basis that Jesus is infallible is also disreputable to unbelieving academics.

On that general topic, there are some good arguments for Mosaic authorship here (and as a bonus from the same site, a sampling of scholarly dissent on the issue). For that matter, there are many solid arguments in The Fundamentals (whence "fundamentalism"). This includes more recent advances in ANE studies.

Just because characters are described in an assertive way doesn’t mean the characters themselves are genuine or actually did what was said of them (e.g. Noah and the ark, Jonah and the whale). If God intended every statement Jesus or any other biblical prophet said were absolute truths; he wouldn’t have given us demonstrable facts and replicable science (e.g., the mustard seed being the smallest of all the seeds; Christ getting angry at a fig tree for not having any figs when it was out of season, etc.).

Whose judgement on such matters is supreme, yours, or Christ’s? I would think that Jesus knows more than you, being omniscient and all.

Your complaints about the mustard seed and the fig tree show a misunderstanding of the nature of parables.

IV)

Your presentation on "foreordination" is much more clearly Mormon, and only loosely compatible with what you said in the Warning, and not compatible at all with Scripture.

1. Your movement of the origin of God’s choice from His own good pleasure to a mere recognition of each person’s "uncreated nature" at the core of their being makes it a matter of Fate.

2. Your Elect having something to boast of, that their uncreated inherent natures are better than the others’. Therefore they cannot be the Pauline Elect, because Paul says that his doctrine excludes boasting. In the first place he says that no one understands and no one seeks after God. The fact that Romans 3:11 paraphrases this from Psalm 14 (and 53) does not prove it only applies to fools because, first, the Psalm transitions to what the Lord sees as He looks down on "the children of men", not just fools, and second, Paul places this in the context of "both Jews and Gentiles", immediately in vs. 9 and throughout the argument in the preceding chapters.

The Pauline doctrine excludes boasting because the election happens in the context of our sin (see Romans 5:10, Ephesians 2:5), you place it in the context of obedience in a premortal war against Satan. 1 John 4:19 says, "We love him, because he first loved us."

The Pauline doctrine excludes boasting because it’s independent of character, illustrated by the difference between Jacob and Esau. If you had to have business deals with one of them, who would you pick? I’d take Esau, honestly (although I would pick Jacob over Laban). And if it’s true that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, the character of his sons, who sold their little brother into slavery, slaughtered an entire town when only one person in it was guilty, and practiced sexual misconduct (or at least, Judah and Reuben did) also makes Jacob look bad. Yet God loved Jacob and hated Esau. This is not to deny the truth that sanctification is the inevitable sequel of justification, but it does show our inherent natures have nothing to do with it.

3. However much it may trouble you to think that God is altogether in control over who is saved, this is the very plain teaching of Scripture. Paul cited Jacob and Esau in Romans 9, and then added:

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

There’s nothing here about recognizing who has a better uncreated nature; that would make it of our uncreated nature. It’s of God having mercy. Making it of anything else is imposing your meaning on the text rather than taking it from the text.

Next Paul cites the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, which is not only said to be the work of God Himself by Paul, but also the text of Exodus:

(7:3-5) "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments. And the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt, and bring out the children of Israel from among them."

(9:16, cited by Romans 9:17) "And in very deed for this cause have I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth."

(10:1-2) "And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him: And that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son's son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I am the LORD."

(14:4) "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD. And they did so."

And beside all this, I think it becomes obvious after a certain point that there’s supernatural influence on Pharaoh hardening his heart. About the time the Nile turned to blood, I would think, because that’s creepy. An ordinary person would just freak out. At some points the narrative has Pharaoh harden his heart and at some points has God hardening it, but every time God addresses the issue, He takes full credit.

This is the full impact of Paul’s reference to the Pharaoh, and this is what Paul makes his audience think of (and the Jewish Christians, at least, were very familiar with the whole story) before he says:

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

If this is a problem for us, God Himself doesn’t seem to think it should be. In all those statements from Exodus, God positively brags about repeatedly hardening Pharaoh’s heart just so He can show off some more. This fits with what Scripture says of the lost in general:

The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. (Proverbs 16:4)

This is not a smooth thing, this would not tickle the ears. People have lots of objections which mostly boil down to whether it’s fair. Paul anticipates this, and he answers it thus:

Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

He made us, and therefore He owns us, and therefore He may do with us as He pleases.

N.B., He did not see how the pots are shaped and apportion their use on that basis, instead He shaped them based on what use He intended them for.

4. On whether God is a horrible monster.

Knowing in advance one will be condemned and tortured in hell for all eternity and not lifting a finger to change that person’s fate, not even a miniscule nudge in the right direction; makes God into a horrible monster.

If I understand the Mormon doctrine aright, choosing Jesus’ plan over Lucifer’s meant exactly this, in that with free agency some people’s natures would take them to the Outer Darkness. And even apart from that, God knows our natures, and knows what influences would bring about repentance. In Matthew 10, Jesus said He knew what would have brought repentance to Tyre and Sidon, and Sodom -- and He didn’t do it.

5. You have asserted that foreordination has to do with a pre-existence as uncreated intelligences. This is not where the Bible says souls come from.

Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. (Ecclesiastes 12:7)

Note the parallelism. The body was not just always there, it originated from dust, likewise the spirit originated by God’s giving of it, thus they are not co-eternal with Him.

I would take the parallelism as going further than most. This is controversial in Reformed theology, but I nevertheless think it’s the Biblical teaching. You see, my body didn’t come from the dust, it came from my mother’s body, which came from her mother’s, and so on back to Eve, and Eve’s body came from Adam’s body, and finally Adam’s body came from dust. A vast number of generations are elided over to show the ultimate rather than proximate origin. Likewise, souls are propagated by the father’s line. The giving by God refers to Adam’s soul, just as the earthy origin of the body refers to Adam’s body. This is why Adam’s sin brings death to all (Romans 5:12) and why all are sinful beginning even at conception (Psalm 51:5).

It fits well with a passage from Hebrews I’m sure you’re familiar with in connection with another one of your errors.

One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him. (Hebrews 7:9-10)

Also, while the Bible never teaches pre-existence (that includes Jeremiah 1:5, which teaches foreknowledge), the pagan philosopher Plato did. So if you’re worried about Greek ideas infiltrating in, the pre-existence of souls is a prime example.

6. Although predestination, and especially reprobation, seem horrible, the doctrine that the saved can become lost really is horrible. First, on your own logic it would make God a horrible monster if He foresees a person going on to his damnation and doesn’t intervene to help, and you deny that God is a horrible monster; therefore on your principles He must intervene before a saved person can become lost. Surely if such a person knew the stakes he would be grateful for a timely car wreck.

The real issue is not whether we can lose salvation, but whether God can lose the saved. He cannot. We who are saved are kept by all three Persons of the Trinity. In John 10:29 Jesus said no man can pluck the sheep out of the Father’s hand. He did not make an exception so that the sheep can pluck themselves out. In John 6, Jesus says that He will not cast out any who come to Him, who were those given to Him by the Father (vs. 37), and again that He shall lose nothing of what was given to Him (vs. 39). And the Elect are sealed with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13); how can such a Seal finally and fully fail?

Nevertheless, we have, first, the serious warnings against sin and apostasy, and second, the observation that some believers do finally and fully fall away and so far as we can tell die in their sins. It would seem that the only "out" is to assert that these were never truly believers. But this isn’t really an out, it’s what the Bible itself says.

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. (1 John 2:19)

"When God calls a sinner, He does not repent of it. God does not, as many friends do, love one day and hate another; or as princes, who make their subjects favorites and afterwards throw them into prison. This is the blessedness of a saint; his condition admits of no alteration. God’s call is founded upon His decree, and His decree is immutable. Acts of grace cannot be reversed. God blots out His people’s sins, but not their names." --Thomas Watson

7. I don’t accept that God has any need of absolution. As I’ve already addressed somewhat, the only natural moral law that has anything to do with our relationship to God is ownership by right of creation. He made us, therefore He owns us, therefore He may do with us as He wishes. He owes us nothing, we owe Him everything. We may complain and petition and beg about something, and He will choose to heed us or to ignore us according to His own good pleasure.

On the general topic of theodicy, I’d like to know if you’ve ever actually told a grieving mother that her dead baby really wanted it.

V)

1. On Isaiah.

Exclusivity statements must ALWAYS be taken in context. "Melissa is the smartest student;"

This doesn’t address the language actually used. "Melissa is the only smart student; there is no smart student beside her, there was none before her, and there will be none after her." No longer so easy to restrict to only one context, is that? God used every resource of human language He could have used in asserting all-comprehensive uniqueness. If you still deny He said it, there can have been no possible language the text could have contained which would make you accept that it says God is indeed the only God anywhere. But that says nothing about the text, just about you.

The Bible isn’t a legal document that tries to cover all conditions. Isaiah’s context is more than sufficient to show these exclusivity passages are incapable of disproving Mormonism.

Incapable? I suspect that nothing whatsoever could have been said in the text to change your interpretation. But that’s not interpretation. Interpretation has to do with WHAT THE TEXT SAYS.

2. On Isaiah, part 2.

We find no indication the biblical prophets had any concept of the Multiverse, containing an infinite number of universes. Consequently, they can only describe God in a manner in which they knew… We say the context and cosmology of the writers can’t be disregarded and you place onto them your own cosmology which encompasses all other universes outside our own. I’m honest enough to admit my bias in extending Second Isaiah’s cosmology to include the entire universe of hundreds of billions of stars in each of the hundreds of billions of galaxies despite the 6th century B.C.E. Near Eastern concept of reality was of a single earth covered by a dome that was below a cosmic water ocean (where rain came from) and whose celestial bodies were attached to the inside of the dome. If I can admit my bias of extending the volume of Second Isaiah’s cosmos by a googol despite there’s no proof he even conceived of such a volume when describing YHWH’s exclusivity; surely you can do likewise by your usage of an absolute infinity?

A) Isaiah was quoting God. Isaiah’s cosmology only matters if Isaiah was lying about the fact that God said those words. And if Isaiah was lying, what difference would it make if his text supports my position? (Incidentally, if we knew Isaiah made it all up, would it even occur to you to dispute my interpretation of what he said?) Even granting that those statements are only "in effect" within the size of cosmos the speaker had in mind, they would cover the whole cosmos which actually exists because the speaker is God and He already knew everything about cosmology.

B) Is this conversation covered by the First Amendment? Does it matter that the Framers knew nothing of the Internet?

3. On your claim the early Hebrews were polytheists. The Bible does not, of course, teach anything like a council of gods. You admit this yourself when you say the Bible was doctored by monotheists leaving only reflections of the earlier belief.

A) The assumption behind the scholarship which says primitive Israelite religion was polytheist is that monotheism, in any sense of that term, is false, and therefore can only have emerged via purely social processes (over against special revelation). You like that company?

B) I thought you said Mormonism taught one god for this universe, but here you say the original Biblical view was that there were lots of gods with some assigned to nations and others assigned as patrons of various things, including Nehushtan (!). Not only does this contradict Mormonism, it contradicts what the Bible actually says, in Isaiah and elsewhere. Was it true when it was written? If not, did God reveal error? And if He did, what makes you think you can trust what you *think* is His revelation to you that Mormonism is true?

C) If a Heavenly Court implies a council of gods, what do you make of the Heavenly Court in Revelation, complete not only with angels (who discuss issues among themselves and conduct inquires such as who might be worthy to unseal the scroll) but also twelve elders and the four beasts before the throne, whatever these might be.

D) I’ve gone on at length already and I see no need for an in depth examination of the verses you cite, especially the Mormon ones which are irrelevant. Some general observations:

a) "God" can indeed mean anything which is considered a god by some human somewhere. Hence it is correct to say the Lord is above all the gods, etc, because He exists and they don’t. That makes Him greater.

b) Psalm 82 is obviously talking about men in positions of authority. They "judge unjustly" and they will die (both of which are impossible for exalted beings in Mormonism). Jesus’ reference in John 10 also makes more sense if the addressees of Psalm 82 are human. This makes it clear that in the Hebrew "god" can mean anyone in a position of authority or might. Or do you think Exodus 7:1 means that Moses is a divine being?

c) The "Sons of God" are angels, not lesser deities. If you read the text assuming primitive polytheism, that’s what you’ll see. But that view is false, because monotheism is true.

4. It is an insult to say that God isn’t Lord over all which is because His claims require that He be Lord over all existence because of His comprehensive exclusivity and because all things were made by the Word. And we have His own word that He is, indeed, a jealous God.

5. The Mormon idea that YHWH is Jesus and Elohim is the Father is wrong. (Incidentally, that and the Graf-Wellhousen hypothesis are incompatible attempts to explain the same thing, which doesn’t need any special explanation in the first place.) There are plenty of verses equating YHWH and Elohim. You try to get around that here by basically saying YHWH means the Son except when it means the Father and Elohim means the Father except when it means the Son. But this is to abandon the claim to know a simple identification between the Persons of the Trinity and the OT divine names.

6. Continuing with Christology, the concept of incarnation loses its force in a Mormon cosmology. In Christianity, the claim is shocking; in Mormonism, you make it nothing because you have lots of gods, all with physical bodies. Why should John have told us, as if revealing a great mystery, that the Word was made flesh? Isn’t that SOP?

7. Mormon theogony is not rational. (BTW, if you even have a theogony, you’re not Christian.) It supposes an infinite succession of universes each with a god, which implies universes infinitely far back of us; if there aren’t universes infinitely far back, they are all some finite number back and the succession of universes is finite, requiring a First Cause somewhere. But if there are universes infinitely far before us, getting from that universe to ours requires traversing an infinite number of steps, which is impossible because however many steps you take, there are always more.

VI)

1.Mormonism is a distinct religion. But even accepting is as a subset of Christianity, it doesn’t have a position of equality with Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy. Sociologists (who don’t care about doctrinal issues) have four categories of Christians, but the fourth is all the various fringe groups including the JWs and obscure sects like Swedenborgians beside the Mormons.

2. If you lost all the files, why keep the links on your site?

3. I also find theological discussion fun. But this is more than exercising our brains. There are serious issues of our eternal standings before the Thrice-Holy.

I've nothing to say, yet. I just wanted to get in before somebody gets this thread pulled.

Those views certainly should hurt him with Mormons!

There are a lot of misperceptions and half-truths out there still about the LDS church IMHO. Like some lady was trying to convince me, a member, that polygamy is still practice today because she saw it on TV so it must be true. Sheesh

Actually, polygamy is practiced, not by mainstream Mormons, but still in different places by Mormon offshoots. I believe that some are moving down to Texas.

Actually, polygamy is practiced, not by mainstream Mormons, but still in different places by Mormon offshoots. I believe that some are moving down to Texas

These "Mormon offshoots" are members of the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints which has nothing to do with the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS Church) and, yes, they still practice polygamy. When people call them Mormons they propagate the misconception that the mainstream religion continues to practice polygamy. It was practiced to a limited extent up to 120 years ago by the mainstream religion but the practice was discontinued completely and anyone practicing it excommunicated as they are today. These fundamentalists are certainly NOT Mormons.