an lds review of: anti-mormon documents

karenstricycle
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:53 pm

an lds review of: anti-mormon documents

Post by karenstricycle » Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:43 pm

.
Last edited by karenstricycle on Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:49 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Re: (An) LDS review of anti-mormon documents

Post by Jill » Thu Dec 04, 2008 9:06 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Re: (An) LDS review of anti-mormon documents

Post by Jill » Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:30 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: (An) LDS review of anti-mormon documents

Post by darinhouston » Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:08 pm

karenprtlnd wrote:Sorry folks, but to have done this is just not christian.
Only if it's untrue and they know it to be so. Karen, let me ask you a question -- how sure are you that these things aren't true, and what makes you so sure? If it is true, wouldn't you want to know? You seem to deny it because it's so damaging and inconsistent with your particular fellowship -- but, do you also deny it because you know it to be false about teh larger institution (now or the past)? I'm at the limit of my own personal knowledge of these things, but these are pretty common objections to which I've never seen any official response. You suggest that the LDS is just a loose affiliation and have no "official" doctrines of the sort that an LDS member must adhere to, but this is not consistent with anything I've read or the experiences of some LDS who have "come out" of that tradition.

I don't mean to be rude, but refusing to believe it only because it's so inflammatory seems to be a bit like sticking one's head in the sand.

I would definitely be interested in your rebuttal to these things rather than just accusations that folks are being "mean."

I haven't seen it, but for only $3, this should be particularly interesting to see how an LDS apologist responds to White's data -- I think I'll buy it -- if others want to also and discuss it here, that could be interesting. This should at least get to the root of the issue, as there will be someone there to confront White's errors if they be factually/historically false.

http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product_in ... cts_id=235
Can Men Become Gods? A Christian vs Mormon Debate (MP3)
[449MP3] $3.00

449 - Can Men Become Gods? A Christian vs Mormon Debate

by James White vs Martin Tanner

The issue of the nature of God is the dividing line that separates Mormonism from Biblical Christianity. Mormon apologists over the past few decades have begun appealing to the early church fathers and the doctrine of "theosis," asserting that if we acknowledge the Christian standing of these early Christians, then we should not question the claim that Mormons are Christians as well. But is this a fair use of the early Fathers? James White debates LDS apologist and FARMS contributor Martin Tanner at the University of Utah on this key subject. (1 Hour 56 Minutes).

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Re: (An) LDS review of anti-mormon documents

Post by Jill » Sat Feb 07, 2009 4:57 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:34 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Re: (An) LDS review of anti-mormon documents

Post by Jill » Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:34 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Re: (An) LDS review of anti-mormon documents

Post by Jill » Sat Feb 07, 2009 7:03 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: (An) LDS review of anti-mormon documents

Post by darinhouston » Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:36 pm

I've been listening to the debate, and though it isn't all that "fruitful" for convincing either of the other position I don't think, it did what debates are often meant to do and that is to really show what the two views actually believe. The LDS apologist was for the most part pretty revealing, and was not in the least bit bashful to acknowledge what mainstream/official LDS doctrine is, though he was more interested in trying to convince White that the early Christian church believed what LDS presently do than he was in discussing the doctrinal differences. In no way did he deny much of what we have addressed here.

I'll have some quotes soon from his own lips in clear response to some of Dr. White's very specific questions, but in general the debate was over the eternality of mankind and whether humans can become gods.

You really had to listen carefully to what he was saying in some places because, for example, he seemed to at least acknowledge that there was some "distinction" between man and God, but when pressed it was clear that he meant that only in the sense that there is also a distinction between one man and another man. He also was consistent in saying that there was a difference in "kind" only in the nature of God today as compared to man today (as opposed to what man would one day become).

He clearly believed that man's souls were eternal and were not created (especially by God), that God the Father didn't really create anything (ex nihilo) out of nothing and that all matter and all that is existed eternally and there were other Gods like the Father (due to the many references in Scripture to the "councils" of god and the plurality of elohim, etc, and also subsequent LDS revelation on the subject). In response to the "other planets" questions, he didn't deny it but only suggested that it is somewhat unclear "where" these other gods exist and where the Father "came from" and implied that he agreed that the "other planets" doctrine was one of the mainstream views of LDS to answer this question.

This is as close to an "official" position on this stuff as we are likely to find. Karen, if God's grace has enabled you to see past these doctrines and you don't believe them then I think that's great and I give you a hearty amen!, but I think you need to honestly reflect on whether you do know what LDS doctrine really is and whether you belong in that group, because from what I've been able to tell, you don't believe this stuff and they do.

I think there's room for a Christian who "reads" the Book of Mormon outside of the LDS organization just as there is room for a Christian to (wrongly I believe) hold to teachings of Augustine in his Confessions or Calvin in his Institutes, and I suspect over time God will reveal the truth to you in that regard, as well. I don't mean to be condescending, but I think that if you can just let go of this and step out in faith and begin attending a reasonably conservative Christian fellowship, you will really thrive.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: (An) LDS review of anti-mormon documents

Post by darinhouston » Mon Feb 09, 2009 10:52 am

I went through and noted a few notable q&a exchanges -- I just skipped around and picked a few -- I'm sure I missed some of the better ones, but these are pretty interesting.


White:
Dr. Tanner, do you agree with the publication that I cited initially "Achieving A Celestial Marriage" from the LDS church in regards to its teaching that God became God by obedience to law?
Tanner:
uh - yes, I do -- I have no reason to disbelieve that

White:
you have said we are of the same genus-species as God -- do you agree with the statement that we are gods in an embryo.
Tanner:
what I quoted was Paul who said that ... we are his "offspring" -- yes, I believe that to be true.
White:
that we are gods in embryo
Tanner:
yes, that's also a quotation from the early church fathers -- they believed we were gods in "prototype." They didn't use the word "embryo" like Latter Day Saints, they used the word prototype.
White:
So, if we are gods in embryo, as you have just said, then is it not the case that we share the same nature as god
Tanner:
Well, in a sense we share the same "nature" as God as we learn in the New Testament -- if we didn't share in a sense his same nature, we wouldn't be said to be his children in the New Testament. Are we in complete of the same nature as God, now, absolutely not -- no one would take that position.
White:
[responding to an assertion that we are by nature capable of being god as children of god] wouldn't you agree that the Lord Jesus said "to become the children of God we have to believe in Jesus Christ?"
Tanner:
yes
White:
why would we have to "become" the children of God if we all "are" the children of God by nature?
Tanner:
well, there's a difference between what we have been brought into the world as children of God through the fall of Adam and what we have the potential to be -- if you have a child... your child has to a certain degree your nature (as a child) but he also has tremendous potential, and as he or she grows up, he can attain more and more of your nature as he does so.

White:
would you agree with Joseph Smith that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all?
Tanner:
I would believe along with JS along with many Catholic scholars and many jewish scholars who believe that the beginning of Genesis speaks of a creation not out of nothing but out of existing elements and matter, and I would also agree with many of the early church fathers that there was a pre-existence of humans.

White:
Is it not a fair statement that within the LDS context, that "whenever we speak of "God" we are speaking of an exalted man?"
Tanner:
I think that is the general belief - yes.

White:
[responding to an assertion that Athanasius believed we can become Gods], When we read JS and his statement that we have to learn to dwell in everlasting burnings and learn how to become gods as all the gods have learned before us, in the King Follett Funeral Discourse, would you not agree with me that that is a context completely foreign to that of Athanasius?
Tanner:
absolutely not -- I think that one of the great distinctions between the Protestant world today and the early Christians is on whom God will choose to bestow this greatest of all gifts. There is a belief that is rampant now that if you just believe, that gift will be bestowed upon you. The early church fathers had a very common saying -- "we don't think thoughts, we do great things;....
White:
but, is it still then your assertion, however, that Athanasius with his doctrine of who God the Father was, having been eternally God, that Athanasius would have understood the words of JS that we have to learn how to become gods as God Himself learned how to be a god -- would he have agreed with that...
Tanner:
Oh, I see -- no, I don't think Athanasius would have believed that there was a time when God the Father was a man.

Jill
Posts: 582
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:16 pm

Re: (An) LDS review of anti-mormon documents

Post by Jill » Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:27 pm

.
Last edited by Jill on Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Latter Day Saints (aka Mormonism)”