It is amazing how deception is cloaked in nice music and the name of Jesus attached to a lie. They have literally emptied the cross of its power! Sad. They truly believe that they will rise to the level of a "god" if they follow this teaching.
Dr. White makes a few rather glib assertions here:
1. Christianity is Monotheistic
Well... no, not necessarily. You've got that whole Son of God thing. Which basically means that Christians worship at least two beings, and possibly three (although people don't seem to talk much about the Holy Spirit part).
Just try and explain to me how this whole Trinity thing works without falling into either tri-theistic or modalist heresies. If you can do that, then maybe I'll buy this whole "we're strict monotheists" line.
Until then, you guys aren't monotheists. Sorry.
2. The Mormon God is a created being.
Absolutely wrong. Dr. White should have spent less time watching the Godmakers, and more time actually studying Mormon theology here.
There is no such thing as a "created being" in Mormon theology.
Got that?
No created beings.
All beings in Mormon theology are eternal. You, me, God, Jesus - all of them are eternal and uncreated. Indeed, existence itself is uncreated as well.
Was God always God, or was he once a "sinful man" on another planet? Or was he eternally always God?
As a Mormon - don't know. Don't care.
Either option is possible under Mormon theology (something that James White fails to recognize due to the shallowness of his inquiry into Mormon theology). Modern Mormon theologians are at this very moment arguing that God was always God. They make a good scriptural case for it. Other Mormons do in fact believe the idea that God may not have always been God.
I'm agnostic on the subject myself.
But it doesn't really matter, and here's why:
You can still have a universe governed by one eternal divine will - regardless of what you think about God the Father's resume.
How?
Well, it's kind of surprising that a bunch of trinitarians wouldn't have realized it by now, but...
If you can combine THREE beings into a theological concept of "One God," you can also combine more.
I repeat - if you can unite three separate beings into One God through theological devices, you can do the same thing with four beings, ten beings, a thousand beings, infinite beings even.
One God.
And Mormons are now just as "monotheist" as you guys are.
Seth, you state this "If you can combine THREE beings into a theological concept of "One God," you can also combine more. I repeat - if you can unite three separate beings into One God through theological devices, you can do the same thing with four beings, ten beings, a thousand beings, infinite beings even."
You can do this, BUT, according to the scriptures, there is only One God; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The finite human mind cannot possibly fully grasp this truth; we who have been born from above accept this as truth. Our faith is based solely on God's word, which is the only absolute source of truth we have. You can worship as many gods as you like, however, there is only one God, the Creator of all things, the God of heaven and earth, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; this is the Christian God.
Yes, except that Mormons don't accept the Bible as the last and final word of God. Just PART of the word of God.
So that line doesn't work with us.
But let's be clear here - we worship God the Father in the name of his son Jesus Christ.
We do not worship any other beings. Neither do we worship "the universe" or "universal law" or anything like that. We worship God the Father in the name of his son Jesus Christ and nothing else.
You don't accept the historic Bible as the last word of God but you will accept some guy from the 1700's who began Mormonism? Let's listen to the words of Jesus Christ BEFORE Joseph Smith existed!
Revelation 20:16-20 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star. The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price. I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!
Joseph Smith certainly has ADDED and SUBTRACTED from the Bible. Will Jesus stick to what He said? Most certainly!
Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon in the early 1800s.
And I don't consider the Book of Mormon to be the word of "some guy.
It is God's word.
And incidentally, you do realize that the verse you quoted in Revelations 20:16-20 only refers to the Book of Revelation, right?
Few points here:
1. The book of Revelation was written prior to some of the other biblical books, and prior the Bible being assembled into a collection of texts. Therefore, this verse can only apply to the Book of Revelation, and not the Bible as a whole (some of which was unwritten and none of which was yet assembled together into 'the Bible'). While the traditional date of the book of Revelation is A.D. 95 or 96 (primarily based on a statement by Irenaeus), many scholars now date it as early as A.D. 68 or 69. The Gospel of John is generally dated A.D. 95-100.
2. The New Testament is made up of first the four Gospels and then second the epistles of the apostles. Since the book of Revelation is neither a gospel nor an epistle, it was placed at the end of the canon in its own category. Therefore, John cannot have intended the last few sentences of Revelation to apply to the entire Bible, since he was not writing a 'final chapter' for the New Testament and since the Bible would not be completed and canonized for some centuries later.
3. Other scriptures (such as Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32, and Proverbs 30:6) likewise forbid additions; for your arguments to be self-consistent, you would have to discard everything in the New Testament and much of the Old, since these verses predate "other scripture" added by God through later prophets.
So, I'd suggest that this passage in Revelations 20 simply doesn't mean what you think it means.
And I'm rather curious as to what you think that Joseph Smith ever subtracted from the Bible in the first place.
My experience is that Joseph Smith's writings (which were from God - not Joseph) don't really contradict the bare text of the Bible.
They do however, frequently contradict all that additional philosophical baggage that Christian thinkers have ADDED to the text.
How do you check out the entire Book of Mormon? You don't. You go to the Index at the back and you look up key doctrines or you ask those Mormon missionaries for their literature which explains their cardinal beliefs and then you subject them to the teaching of the word of God. If the Book of Mormon is another revelation from God, then it cannot contradict the Bible, because God cannot deny lie (Titus 1:2) or deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13) It will not take you long to see that the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible. Here are some glaring examples:
[i] The Bible teaches that salvation is by grace through faith and through nothing we can do (Ephesians 2:8-9/Titus 3:5) The Book of Mormon teaches us that we are saved by grace after all we can do (2 Nephi 25:23)
[ii] The main contention of the Book of Mormon is that Jesus Christ visited the American Indians around AD34. I explore the nonsense of this, from a Biblical point of view, elsewhere. Take time to study it and use it.
[iii] As explained also elsewhere, the basis which the Book of Mormon puts forth for believing Nephi who recorded these things is false: "And now it came to pass that according to our record, and we know that our record to be true, for behold, it was a just man who did keep the record - for he truly did many miracles in the name of Jesus: and there was not any man who could do a miracle in the name of Jesus save he were cleansed every whit from his iniquity-" (3 Nephi 8:1)
This is no basis to believe anyone as the verse below amply proves: REMEMBER: EVEN FALSE CHRIST'S CAN WORK MIRACLES For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many…For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Matthew 24:5/24)
They read it as a call to do everything that is humanly possible for you to do. Of course we know that no flawed human being ever really does "all they can do." So what is going on here?
First off, I think that the wording of the verse is grammatically awkward and it's possible that it was simply obscured in meaning in translation. This happens a lot when translating a document from one language into another - as the Bible illustrates with its often tricky Greek-to-English translations.
A more grammatically correct reading of the verse would be "after all we can do, it is by grace we are saved." Mormon scholar Robert Millet has proposed exactly this reading of the verse.
You also have to read this passage in light of other Book of Mormon passages.
First, I'd recommend reading the verse in light of 2 Nephi 2:3-9 - where a prophet - Lehi - is saying farewell to his family and gives one of the Book of Mormon's keynote addresses on the Atonement. Lehi makes it clear that "salvation is free" on condition of belief in Christ.
Also look at the language of 2 Nephi 10:24:
"Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved."
Another fairly clear endorsement of grace as the key to salvation.
And then King Benjamin's speech in Mosiah 3:17:
"And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent."
In fact, I'd recommend most of King Benjamin's speech on this subject. Especially Mosiah 2:17-25 (I've never seen a clearer statement that it is only by grace that any are saved - not even in the Bible!). There's also a portion of that many people typically read as a laundry list of stuff you are supposed to be doing in Mosiah 4:12-16. This is wrong.
Note the key word in verse 12 - "if."
If what?
If you go through the conversion process to Christ that Benjamin has been talking about. IF you do that, THEN all those good works flow forth as a result.
Final scripture for you - Alma 24:11-12:
"And now behold, my brethren, since it has been all that we could do, (as we were the most lost of all mankind) to repent of all our sins and the many murders which we have committed, and to get God to take them away from our hearts, for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain—
Now, my best beloved brethren, since God hath taken away our stains, and our swords have become bright, then let us stain our swords no more with the blood of our brethren."
This is where a group of converts accept the Gospel and bury their weapons.
Did you catch the key phrase in verse 11?
"all we can do"
What was "all" they "could do?"
To repent.
Period.
Hope you'll take another look at these verses and reconsider what the Book of Mormon is asking you to do.
Gerald R. McDermott, the Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion at Roanoke College and author, with Robert Millet, of Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate, addressed the question of whether Latter-day Saints are Christians in an article "Is Mormonism Christian?" published in First Things magazine (October 2008).
By examining Professor McDermott's critique in light of the Bible, one can see that Mormonism differs from historic Christian orthodoxy to the degree that historic Christian orthodoxy diverges from Biblical truths.
Seth R. said "Christianity is Monotheistic Well... no, not necessarily. You've got that whole Son of God thing. Which basically means that Christians worship at least two beings, and possibly three (although people don't seem to talk much about the Holy Spirit part).'
Your understanding of the trinity is where you err. An accurate definition would be something along the lines of one eternal being of God - indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms "being" and "person." We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day. We recognize what something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings---God, man, and angels. As a Christian, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. We are not saying that the Father is the Son, or the Son the Spirit, or the Spirit the Father. It is very common for people to misunderstand the doctrine as to mean that we are saying Jesus is the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity does not in any way say this! I pray this helps.
"yet we also recognize individuals within a classification."
This is like saying there's a Quarterback, Running-Back, and Offensive Lineman, but they all play for the Denver Broncos.
That's tri-theism.
I know trinitarians CLAIM to not being doing either tri-theism, or modalism.
But I have never, not once, heard a trinitarian explain the whole concept without resorting to a metaphor or image that wasn't either tri-theist or modalist.
That which cannot be logically explained cannot be worshiped. What is incomprehensible cannot be worshiped. You cannot have a relationship with the Trinity as presently formulated by Nicea (or subsequent creeds).
I'd like to see Seth and James White debate. James would run circles around him. Seth has not refuted anything by James White yet in any of the videos...
"Is Mormonism Christian?" or "Are Mormons Christians?" are not very useful ways to frame the issue.
ReplyDeleteA better question is "does Mormonism offer a saving faith?"
And the answer to all three questions is "no".
ReplyDeleteIt is amazing how deception is cloaked in nice music and the name of Jesus attached to a lie. They have literally emptied the cross of its power! Sad. They truly believe that they will rise to the level of a "god" if they follow this teaching.
ReplyDeleteDr. White makes a few rather glib assertions here:
ReplyDelete1. Christianity is Monotheistic
Well... no, not necessarily. You've got that whole Son of God thing. Which basically means that Christians worship at least two beings, and possibly three (although people don't seem to talk much about the Holy Spirit part).
Just try and explain to me how this whole Trinity thing works without falling into either tri-theistic or modalist heresies. If you can do that, then maybe I'll buy this whole "we're strict monotheists" line.
Until then, you guys aren't monotheists. Sorry.
2. The Mormon God is a created being.
Absolutely wrong. Dr. White should have spent less time watching the Godmakers, and more time actually studying Mormon theology here.
There is no such thing as a "created being" in Mormon theology.
Got that?
No created beings.
All beings in Mormon theology are eternal. You, me, God, Jesus - all of them are eternal and uncreated. Indeed, existence itself is uncreated as well.
Was God always God, or was he once a "sinful man" on another planet? Or was he eternally always God?
As a Mormon - don't know. Don't care.
Either option is possible under Mormon theology (something that James White fails to recognize due to the shallowness of his inquiry into Mormon theology). Modern Mormon theologians are at this very moment arguing that God was always God. They make a good scriptural case for it. Other Mormons do in fact believe the idea that God may not have always been God.
I'm agnostic on the subject myself.
But it doesn't really matter, and here's why:
You can still have a universe governed by one eternal divine will - regardless of what you think about God the Father's resume.
How?
Well, it's kind of surprising that a bunch of trinitarians wouldn't have realized it by now, but...
If you can combine THREE beings into a theological concept of "One God," you can also combine more.
I repeat - if you can unite three separate beings into One God through theological devices, you can do the same thing with four beings, ten beings, a thousand beings, infinite beings even.
One God.
And Mormons are now just as "monotheist" as you guys are.
Best regards.
Seth, you state this "If you can combine THREE beings into a theological concept of "One God," you can also combine more.
ReplyDeleteI repeat - if you can unite three separate beings into One God through theological devices, you can do the same thing with four beings, ten beings, a thousand beings, infinite beings even."
You can do this, BUT, according to the scriptures, there is only One God; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The finite human mind cannot possibly fully grasp this truth; we who have been born from above accept this as truth. Our faith is based solely on God's word, which is the only absolute source of truth we have.
You can worship as many gods as you like, however, there is only one God, the Creator of all things, the God of heaven and earth, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; this is the Christian God.
Yes, except that Mormons don't accept the Bible as the last and final word of God. Just PART of the word of God.
ReplyDeleteSo that line doesn't work with us.
But let's be clear here - we worship God the Father in the name of his son Jesus Christ.
We do not worship any other beings. Neither do we worship "the universe" or "universal law" or anything like that. We worship God the Father in the name of his son Jesus Christ and nothing else.
Some polytheists we turned out to be....
Seth,
ReplyDeleteYou don't accept the historic Bible as the last word of God but you will accept some guy from the 1700's who began Mormonism? Let's listen to the words of Jesus Christ BEFORE Joseph Smith existed!
Revelation 20:16-20 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star. The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price. I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!
Joseph Smith certainly has ADDED and SUBTRACTED from the Bible. Will Jesus stick to what He said? Most certainly!
Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon in the early 1800s.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't consider the Book of Mormon to be the word of "some guy.
It is God's word.
And incidentally, you do realize that the verse you quoted in Revelations 20:16-20 only refers to the Book of Revelation, right?
Few points here:
1. The book of Revelation was written prior to some of the other biblical books, and prior the Bible being assembled into a collection of texts. Therefore, this verse can only apply to the Book of Revelation, and not the Bible as a whole (some of which was unwritten and none of which was yet assembled together into 'the Bible'). While the traditional date of the book of Revelation is A.D. 95 or 96 (primarily based on a statement by Irenaeus), many scholars now date it as early as A.D. 68 or 69. The Gospel of John is generally dated A.D. 95-100.
2. The New Testament is made up of first the four Gospels and then second the epistles of the apostles. Since the book of Revelation is neither a gospel nor an epistle, it was placed at the end of the canon in its own category. Therefore, John cannot have intended the last few sentences of Revelation to apply to the entire Bible, since he was not writing a 'final chapter' for the New Testament and since the Bible would not be completed and canonized for some centuries later.
3. Other scriptures (such as Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32, and Proverbs 30:6) likewise forbid additions; for your arguments to be self-consistent, you would have to discard everything in the New Testament and much of the Old, since these verses predate "other scripture" added by God through later prophets.
So, I'd suggest that this passage in Revelations 20 simply doesn't mean what you think it means.
And I'm rather curious as to what you think that Joseph Smith ever subtracted from the Bible in the first place.
My experience is that Joseph Smith's writings (which were from God - not Joseph) don't really contradict the bare text of the Bible.
They do however, frequently contradict all that additional philosophical baggage that Christian thinkers have ADDED to the text.
How do you check out the entire Book of Mormon? You don't. You go to the Index at the back and you look up key doctrines or you ask those Mormon missionaries for their literature which explains their cardinal beliefs and then you subject them to the teaching of the word of God. If the Book of Mormon is another revelation from God, then it cannot contradict the Bible, because God cannot deny lie (Titus 1:2) or deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13) It will not take you long to see that the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible. Here are some glaring examples:
ReplyDelete[i] The Bible teaches that salvation is by grace through faith and through nothing we can do (Ephesians 2:8-9/Titus 3:5) The Book of Mormon teaches us that we are saved by grace after all we can do (2 Nephi 25:23)
[ii] The main contention of the Book of Mormon is that Jesus Christ visited the American Indians around AD34. I explore the nonsense of this, from a Biblical point of view, elsewhere. Take time to study it and use it.
[iii] As explained also elsewhere, the basis which the Book of Mormon puts forth for believing Nephi who recorded these things is false:
"And now it came to pass that according to our record, and we know that our record to be true, for behold, it was a just man who did keep the record - for he truly did many miracles in the name of Jesus: and there was not any man who could do a miracle in the name of Jesus save he were cleansed every whit from his iniquity-" (3 Nephi 8:1)
This is no basis to believe anyone as the verse below amply proves:
REMEMBER: EVEN FALSE CHRIST'S CAN WORK MIRACLES
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many…For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Matthew 24:5/24)
Answering the issue of 2 Nephi 25:23
ReplyDeleteI think that people often misread 2 Nephi 25:23.
They read it as a call to do everything that is humanly possible for you to do. Of course we know that no flawed human being ever really does "all they can do." So what is going on here?
First off, I think that the wording of the verse is grammatically awkward and it's possible that it was simply obscured in meaning in translation. This happens a lot when translating a document from one language into another - as the Bible illustrates with its often tricky Greek-to-English translations.
A more grammatically correct reading of the verse would be "after all we can do, it is by grace we are saved." Mormon scholar Robert Millet has proposed exactly this reading of the verse.
You also have to read this passage in light of other Book of Mormon passages.
First, I'd recommend reading the verse in light of 2 Nephi 2:3-9 - where a prophet - Lehi - is saying farewell to his family and gives one of the Book of Mormon's keynote addresses on the Atonement. Lehi makes it clear that "salvation is free" on condition of belief in Christ.
Also look at the language of 2 Nephi 10:24:
"Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved."
Another fairly clear endorsement of grace as the key to salvation.
And then King Benjamin's speech in Mosiah 3:17:
"And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent."
In fact, I'd recommend most of King Benjamin's speech on this subject. Especially Mosiah 2:17-25 (I've never seen a clearer statement that it is only by grace that any are saved - not even in the Bible!). There's also a portion of that many people typically read as a laundry list of stuff you are supposed to be doing in Mosiah 4:12-16. This is wrong.
Note the key word in verse 12 - "if."
If what?
If you go through the conversion process to Christ that Benjamin has been talking about. IF you do that, THEN all those good works flow forth as a result.
Final scripture for you - Alma 24:11-12:
"And now behold, my brethren, since it has been all that we could do, (as we were the most lost of all mankind) to repent of all our sins and the many murders which we have committed, and to get God to take them away from our hearts, for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain—
Now, my best beloved brethren, since God hath taken away our stains, and our swords have become bright, then let us stain our swords no more with the blood of our brethren."
This is where a group of converts accept the Gospel and bury their weapons.
Did you catch the key phrase in verse 11?
"all we can do"
What was "all" they "could do?"
To repent.
Period.
Hope you'll take another look at these verses and reconsider what the Book of Mormon is asking you to do.
Gerald R. McDermott, the Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion at Roanoke College and author, with Robert Millet, of Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate, addressed the question of whether Latter-day Saints are Christians in an article "Is Mormonism Christian?" published in First Things magazine (October 2008).
ReplyDeleteBy examining Professor McDermott's critique in light of the Bible, one can see that Mormonism differs from historic Christian orthodoxy to the degree that historic Christian orthodoxy diverges from Biblical truths.
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B2mH1gj1Vq-BYjczOWYyMDItNDE5NC00YzAxLTgxZDUtZGZhN2IxMzc2MjIz&hl=en
Most points where sectarian Christians have problems with LDS doctrine illustrate the departure of sectarianism from the Bible.
Seth R. said "Christianity is Monotheistic
ReplyDeleteWell... no, not necessarily. You've got that whole Son of God thing. Which basically means that Christians worship at least two beings, and possibly three (although people don't seem to talk much about the Holy Spirit part).'
Your understanding of the trinity is where you err. An accurate definition would be something along the lines of one eternal being of God - indivisible, infinite. This one being of God is shared by three co-equal, co-eternal persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. It is necessary here to distinguish between the terms "being" and "person." We clearly recognize the difference between being and person every day. We recognize what something is, yet we also recognize individuals within a classification. The Bible tells us there are three classifications of personal beings---God, man, and angels. As a Christian, we are saying that there is one eternal, infinite being of God, shared fully and completely by three persons, Father, Son and Spirit. We are not saying that the Father is the Son, or the Son the Spirit, or the Spirit the Father. It is very common for people to misunderstand the doctrine as to mean that we are saying Jesus is the Father. The doctrine of the Trinity does not in any way say this! I pray this helps.
"yet we also recognize individuals within a classification."
ReplyDeleteThis is like saying there's a Quarterback, Running-Back, and Offensive Lineman, but they all play for the Denver Broncos.
That's tri-theism.
I know trinitarians CLAIM to not being doing either tri-theism, or modalism.
But I have never, not once, heard a trinitarian explain the whole concept without resorting to a metaphor or image that wasn't either tri-theist or modalist.
That which cannot be logically explained cannot be worshiped. What is incomprehensible cannot be worshiped. You cannot have a relationship with the Trinity as presently formulated by Nicea (or subsequent creeds).
I'd like to see Seth and James White debate. James would run circles around him. Seth has not refuted anything by James White yet in any of the videos...
ReplyDeleteVerbal debate is a skill you can excel at regardless of the merit of your position.
ReplyDelete