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.