Difference between revisions of "Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Becoming Gods/Use of sources"

(mod)
(mv)
Line 43: Line 43:
 
[[/Changing Biblical text|Changing Biblical text?]]
 
[[/Changing Biblical text|Changing Biblical text?]]
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
<!--==Quote manipulation==
 +
{{QuoteDisclaimer}}
 +
===Something to Consider===
 +
Most references and comments are placed at the end of the book. This requires a tedious process of looking up each citation at the end of the book by those who wish to study the sources used. Unfortunately, the endnotes are also used to provide information which ought to have been acknowledged in the main text. The average reader will not check the end notes&mdash;they will read the main text without looking up the "rest of the story" in the endnote. Some examples this are provided in the following sections.
 +
 +
==="Celestial sex"===
 +
The book displays a disturbing preoccupation with what is constantly referred to as a "sexual union" between heavenly parents: The word "sex" and "sexual" are often inserted into descriptions of LDS beliefs which otherwise never mention the word. The author makes similar claims in his earlier book [[One Nation Under Gods#Celestial sex?|''One Nation Under Gods'']].
 +
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
 +
!width="5%"|Reference
 +
!width="35%"|The claim...
 +
!width="35%"|The rest of the story...
 +
!width="25%"|[[Use of sources]]
 +
|-
 +
|331 n.35
 +
||Mormons often seek to distance themselves and their church from a problematic past comment of an LDS leader by ... narrowly splitting terms in order to focus on a minor issue while dismissing the broader point that is being made by a critic of the church.
 +
||For example, I have often spoken of the LDS belief in eternal "Celestial Sex" (i.e. the process by which Mormons believe they will procreate spirit children in eternity with their spouses, see chapter 6). But this has brought LDS criticisms because the actual phrase "Celestial Sex" is not used by LDS leaders&mdash;'''even though sexual union is how many Mormons believe they will procreate in the Celestial Kingdom'''. {{ea}}
 +
||
 +
*A search of the endnotes of Chapter 6 shows no references to 1982 anti-Mormon film ''The God Makers'', from which the offensive term "Celestial Sex" originated.
 +
|-
 +
|392 n.14||...thanks to Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother&mdash;'''who, through some kind of sexual union''', "clothed" each of us with a spirit-body. {{ea}}
 +
||Bruce R. McConkie, ''Mormon Doctrine'', p. 750. "Our spirit bodies had their beginning in pre-existence when we were born as the spirit children of God our Father. Through that birth process spirit element was organized into intelligent entities."
 +
||
 +
*Bruce R. McConkie is quoted in the endnote, who never mentions anything about "sexual unions."
 +
|-
 +
|157||According to Brigham Young, our spirit body was created '''via a sexual union''' of Heavenly Father and Mother..."[God] created man, as we create our children," said Young, "[f]or there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be." {{ea}}
 +
||"...So God created man in his own image. in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." I believe that the declaration made in these two scriptures is literally true. God has made His children like Himself to stand erect, and has endowed them with intelligence and power and dominion over all His works, and given them the same attributes which He Himself possesses. He created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be. As the Apostle Paul has expressed it, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being." "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art or man's device." There exist fixed laws and regulations by which the elements are fashioned to fulfill their destiny in all the varied kingdoms and orders of creation, and this process of creation is from everlasting to everlasting. Jesus Christ is known in the scriptures as the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and it is written of Him as being the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of His person. The word image we understand in the same sense as we do the word in the 3rd verse of the 5th chapter of Genesis, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image."
 +
||
 +
*Brigham Young, ''Journal of Discourses'' 11:123.
 +
*Does Brigham sound like he is talking about sex? He is talking about how God created man "in his own image." The author ought to do a better job of keeping his mind from slipping into the gutter.
 +
|}
 +
'''Commentary'''
 +
*The book speaks of the "LDS belief in 'Celestial Sex'" and "sexual union" between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother as a fact, yet this characterization is abhorrent and offensive to Latter-day Saints. The book continues by stating that "sexual union is how many Mormons believe they will procreate in the Celestial Kingdom." Latter-day Saints do not claim to know the process by which spirit children are created.
 +
*It is ironic that the book uses this as an example of Mormons "splitting terms" while "dismissing the broader point" raised by critics. The ''broader point'' is that LDS believe that they will be able to have spirit children if they achieve exaltation. The ''narrow point'' is the assignment of the ugly and offensive term "Celestial Sex" to this process&mdash;a term coined by Ed Decker in the 1982 anti-Mormon film [[The God Makers|''The God Makers'']] ("...engaging in celestial sex with their goddess wives.")
 +
{{parabreak}}
 +
 +
 +
===Comparing population sizes at the beginning and end of a 1000-year period?===
 +
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
 +
!width="5%"|Reference
 +
!width="35%"|The claim...
 +
!width="35%"|The conclusion...
 +
!width="25%"|[[Use of sources]]
 +
|-
 +
|p. 69-70
 +
||'''"LDS apologists and BYU professors are advocating''' a new ''unofficial'' opinion that Lehi and his people represented only a ''' 'small band' ''' of Israelites, compared to a larger population of indigenous people in the New world."
 +
||"'''But according to Mormon 1:7''' in the Book of Mormon, '''the Nephite and Lamanite populations were hardly small''': "The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea [about A.D. 322]."
 +
||*Jeffrey Meldrum, "The Children of Lehi: DNA and the ''Book of Mormon'', lecture at the 2003 FAIR Conference, Aug. 8, 2003.
 +
|}
 +
'''Commentary'''
 +
*The book seems to propose that the proposition that Lehi's small group intermingled with a larger population of Native Americans in approximately 600 B.C. is somehow contradicted and invalidated by the fact that the population was as numerous as "the sand of the sea" in A.D. 322, ''almost 1000 years later''. The logic behind this comparison is elusive. If anything, the idea that Lehi's group mingled with an existing population ''supports'' the idea that they would become quite numerous over a long period of time.
 +
{{parabreak}}
 +
 +
===The Book of Commandments was printed?===
 +
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
 +
!width="5%"|Reference
 +
!width="35%"|The claim...
 +
!width="35%"|What is placed in the endnotes...
 +
!width="25%"|[[Use of sources]]
 +
|-
 +
|p. 84
 +
||[The revelations] were subsequently arranged, edited by Smith for accuracy, then printed as ''A Book of Commandments (1833)''. But '''because very few copies of the ''Book of Commandments'' were produced, it remained unavailable to most Mormons'''. So in 1835 LDS leaders republished the revelations. But by that time the declarations were showing their age. Many contained outdated information. Some included erroneous statements. Others presented abandoned doctrines. A few of the revelations simply revealed too much information about LDS beliefs... {{ea}}
 +
||(p. 370 n.9)The press that printed the sheets of revelations was destroyed by an anti-Mormon mob. The sheets, scattered in the streets, were gathered up and assembled into a 160-page book.
 +
||
 +
*[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Diary_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr._(1832-1834)#1 December 1832—Saturday Joseph Smith's diary, Dec. 1, 1832], "[I] wrote and corrected revelations &c."
 +
*Dean Jessee, PJS, vol. 2, p. 4
 +
|}
 +
'''Commentary'''
 +
*The book makes a statement in the main text and then provide crucial clarification in the endnotes at the back of the book. In the main text, the text makes it appear as if the ''Book of Commandments'' was successfully printed and distributed, but that it was unavailable to most Church members because there were "very few copies." Then, just ''two years'' later, the revelations were supposed to be "showing their age" for a variety of reasons.
 +
*See also: [[Doctrine and Covenants textual changes]]
 +
{{parabreak}}
 +
 +
===Argument from silence?===
 +
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
 +
!width="5%"|Reference
 +
!width="35%"|The claim...
 +
!width="35%"|The rest of the story...
 +
!width="25%"|[[Use of sources]]
 +
|-
 +
|90||LDS apologist Stephen Gibson reasons, "Since we don't have the original manuscripts used for the book of the Bible, nor do we have record of their writing processes, critics cannot claim that Biblical prophets never revised nor added to their revelations." '''But this type of reasoning is known as an "argument from silence."''' It is actually meaningless because arguments from silence can be used to prove nearly anything. {{ea}}
 +
||(p. 101) Eleven pages after implying the LDS are "arguing from silence," the book then states the following:
 +
 +
"Orson Pratt alluded to this idea, arguing that the wisdom of man may certainly not alter revelations, but "[i]f they need altering, God alone has the right to alter them, or to add to them." Pratt then referred to the case of the prophet Jeremiah, whose revelation was burned by the king of Judah. Afterward "Jeremiah was commanded to write all the words again, and there were added besides unto them many like words."
 +
||
 +
*Orson Pratt, "Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon&mdash;no.1, 1850," pp. 4-5. Reprinted in Orson Pratt, ''Orson Pratt's Works'', vol. 2.
 +
*{{s||Jeremiah|36|32}}
 +
|}
 +
'''Commentary'''
 +
*The book claims that Latter-day Saints are [[Logical fallacies#Argument from silence|"arguing from silence"]] on this issue. An "argument from silence" can be presented as follows: "You claimed you had a good explanation for apologetic argument X. You have failed to produce that argument or point me to a resource which could provide it. It is therefore fair to conclude that you do not have such an explanation, since there is nothing which should prevent you from providing it." It seems odd to argue that LDS have no response to support the idea that revelations may be altered by the prophet that gave them, yet later provide that very LDS response and spend time refuting it. It seems that Orson Pratt was not "silent" in his ability to provide Biblical support for his position.
 +
{{parabreak}}
 +
 +
==="Son of Man" or "son of ''a'' man?"===
 +
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
 +
!width="5%"|Reference
 +
!width="35%"|The claim...
 +
!width="35%"|The rest of the story...
 +
!width="25%"|[[Use of sources]]
 +
|-
 +
|149||Now concerning the title "Son of Man," there are several ways to interpret this phrase. But none of them imply that God the Father is a man. One might notice, for instance, that '''contrary to what Mormons may assert''', the phrase does not say "son of ''a'' man." There are no indefinite articles in the Greek. Each instance simply reads, "Son of Man."
 +
||The book implies through the construction of this text that Mormons believe that the title "Son of Man" actually means "son of ''a'' man." (bold emphasis added)
 +
||
 +
*No source is provided to support the assertion and implication that LDS reinterpret the title "Son of Man" as "son of a man."
 +
|}
 +
'''Commentary'''
 +
*Latter-day Saints accept "Son of Man" as a messianic title, and do not attempt to reinterpret or alter it.
 +
{{parabreak}}
 +
 +
===The reason that Latter-day Saints should be excluded from being called "Christian?"===
 +
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
 +
!width="5%"|Reference
 +
!width="35%"|The claim...
 +
!width="35%"|What does he mean?
 +
!width="25%"|[[Use of sources]]
 +
|-
 +
|265||
 +
This does not mean that Mormons are "Christian" in an objective theological sense. It merely means there exists no other category in which they can be placed. Allowing for the broad viewpoint, however, opens up a large can of worms. What about the Branch Davidians, who called themselves "Christian" but stored illegal weapons, abused children, and murdered law enforcement officers? What about The Family, a "Christian" group that currently engages in premarital "sharing" with multiple partners and allows adultery with consent? How about so-called "Christian" witches? There are also a significant number of liberal "Christian"...who deny the virgin birth, the deity of Jesus, and Christ's physical resurrection. And let us not forget "Christian" nudists.
 +
||So, lets examine the stated criteria for disallowing the "broad definition" of the term "Christian:"
 +
*Storing illegal weapons
 +
*Abusing children
 +
*Murdering law enforcement officers
 +
*Pre-maritial sharing partners and consensual adultery
 +
*Witches
 +
*Denial of the virgin birth
 +
*Denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ
 +
*Denial of the resurrection of Jesus Christ
 +
*Nudists
 +
||The book uses a variety of sources related to the various groups mentioned.
 +
|}
 +
'''Commentary'''
 +
*A "laundry list" of groups and their abhorrent practices are presented in order argue ''against'' the application of the term "Christian" to Latter-day Saints. Examining this list closely&mdash;are ''any'' of these things taught, advocated or practiced by Latter-day Saints? ''This'' is the category into which Latter-day Saints are to be consigned? Such a comparison and its use as justification for denying the use of the term "Christian" to Latter-day Saints is insulting.
 +
{{parabreak}}
 +
 +
-->
 +
 +
<!--
 +
=="Conversations" with "LDS believers"==
 +
The book uses an interesting (and annoying) method of illustrating a concept at the beginning of many chapters. Dialogues between the author and LDS "believers" are described. This method, of course, allows the LDS responses to conform to the point that is being made. Latter-day Saints who read these dialogues would certainly not entirely agree with what the "LDS believer" says.
 +
 +
===A "Mormon bishop" who doesn't understand the Godhead?===
 +
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
 +
!width="5%"|Page
 +
!width="45%"|A "conversation" with a bishop
 +
!width="50%"|Commentary
 +
|-
 +
|107-108||
 +
*Author: "Don't you believe the Father is a god?"
 +
*Bishop: "Yes, of course."
 +
*Author: "And the Son is a god?"
 +
*Bishop: "Yes"
 +
*Author: "And the Holy Ghost is a god."
 +
*Bishop: "Yes"
 +
*Author: '''"That's three gods."'''
 +
*Bishop: '''"No, they're one God."'''
 +
*Author: "But you just said each one is a god."
 +
*Bishop: "Yes"
 +
*Author: '''"Then, that's three."'''
 +
*Bishop: '''"No, that's one"'''
 +
 +
{{ea}}
 +
||
 +
*This is a bizarre manipulation of LDS belief.
 +
*Imagine if the roles were reversed, with the "Mormon bishop" asking an Evangelical Christian these questions. It is hard to believe that the concept of the Trinity would produce a different set of answers.
 +
*Note that the book does not have the "Mormon bishop" state that the three are "one in purpose," as ''any'' bishop would.
 +
|}
 +
 +
===A conversation with "LDS friend, Cindy"===
 +
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
 +
!width="5%"|Page
 +
!width="45%"|A "conversation" with a LDS woman
 +
!width="50%"|Commentary
 +
|-
 +
|132||
 +
*Author: "But why? '''Why would you remain faithful to the Mormon god if that is not the God clearly talked about in the Bible?'''"
 +
*"LDS" Cindy: '''"Because I like the Mormon God. I like the idea of God being a man just like us."'''
 +
 +
{{ea}}
 +
||
 +
*This conversation would lead us to believe that a LDS woman "admitted" that she worships the "Mormon god" rather than the God of the Bible.
 +
|}
 +
 +
===A "Mormon missionary" claims that the belief that Jesus paid for his sins is "not my faith?"===
 +
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
 +
!width="5%"|Page
 +
!width="45%"|A "conversation" with a LDS missionary named "Steven."
 +
!width="50%"|Commentary
 +
|-
 +
|177-178||
 +
*Author: '''"That's why we need Jesus. He did it all for us. Paid the price for our sins. Cancelled out the debt against us. Opened up a way, free and clear, to eternal life."
 +
*Elder "Steve": '''"That sounds nice. But that's not my faith."'''
 +
 +
{{ea}}
 +
||
 +
*Latter-day Saints certainly agree that they need Jesus, believe that He paid the price for our sins, cancelled out the debt against us and opened up the way to eternal life. This conversation wants us to believe that a LDS missionary claimed "that's not my faith?"
 +
*The issue here is the phrase "free and clear."
 +
*The conversation is structured so that it appears that the LDS missionary is ''denying the need for Christ''. Any Latter-day Saint would recognize this as being completely unrealistic.
 +
|}
 +
 +
==The "Mormon Jesus" versus the "Traditional Jesus"==
 +
It would be enlightening for any Latter-day Saint to read the book's description of the "Mormon Jesus" in the left column and see just how much of this is recognizable as church doctrine. The list is taken from the endnotes on page 440, note 46. This claim was originally made in the author's earlier work [[One Nation Under Gods#"Mormon Beliefs About Jesus" versus "Christian Beliefs About Jesus"|''One Nation Under Gods''&mdash;"Mormon Beliefs About Jesus" versus "Christian Beliefs About Jesus"]], p. 378.
 +
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
 +
!width="40%"|The "Mormon Jesus"
 +
!width="40%"|Jesus Christ, as viewed by Latter-day Saints
 +
!width="20%"|For more information...
 +
|-
 +
|A ''literal'' son (spirit-child) of a god (Elohim) and his wife.||
 +
*Mormons believe that ''everyone'' is a spirit child of Heavenly Father, including Jesus. What is a spirit child?  We don't have the details. 
 +
*Our eternal nature was organized into a spirit person, whatever that is.  We don't know the details.  We don't know the process in which we became a spirit person.
 +
*The difference between us is that Jesus is divine, while the rest of us are not.
 +
*Why the emphasis on the word "literal"? Apparently, to once again call attention to the subject of "Celestial Sex."
 +
||
 +
*[[Jesus Christ's conception]]
 +
|-
 +
|The elder brother of all spirits born in the pre-existence to Heavenly Father.||
 +
*Latter-day Saints do not claim to know by what method a spirit is "born."
 +
*Christ is the "eldest," but what this means is not also not clear.  Is it a question of temporality?  (i.e., He came first in time)  Is it a rank?  Does it describe His relationship to us?  We simply don't claim to know, since time is only measured unto man.
 +
*Latter-day Saints do believe that Christ was ''not'' created ex nihilo at some moment; He is eternally self-existent.
 +
||
 +
*[[Creation in Colossians 1:16]]
 +
|-
 +
|One of three gods overseeing this planet.||
 +
*There is only one God. Christ is one of three divine beings in the Godhead. They are one in purpose, not one in person. {{s||John|17|3}}, {{s||John|17|20-22}}
 +
*Regardless of this, a creedal Christian ought not to have a problem with one God consisting of more than one Person.
 +
||
 +
*[[Godhead and the Trinity]]
 +
|-
 +
|Atoned only for Adam's transgression, thereby providing the opportunity for us to obtain "eternal life" by our own efforts.
 +
||
 +
*This statement is completely false.
 +
*The Book of Mormon teaches that Christ's sacrifice was "infinite and eternal." (2 Nephi) It could not be exceeded in any sense.  Christ suffered for the sins, griefs, and pains of all humanity (Alma 7), whether or not they repent.
 +
*The benefits of that atonement are restricted if we refuse to do that which He asks of us to accept it (i.e. have faith, repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end.)
 +
||
 +
*[[Salvation by faith alone]]
 +
*[[Neglect grace]]
 +
*[[Early Christian views on salvation]]
 +
|-
 +
|The ''literal'' spirit brother of Lucifer.||
 +
*Again, note the emphasis on the word "literal." Latter-day Saints do ''not'' consider Jesus in any way to be Satan's "peer."
 +
||
 +
*[[Jesus Christ is the brother of Satan]]
 +
|-
 +
|Jesus' sacrificial death is not able to cleanse some people of ''all'' their sins.||
 +
*Latter-day Saints believe that only those who ''reject the atonement'' cannot be cleansed from all their sins. If one doesn't accept the atonement, then the atonement can't save him or her.  But, that is a reflection on the sinner, and does ''not'' imply that Christ's atonement was "not able" to cleanse our sins.
 +
*This is probably alluding to blood atonement.
 +
*Jesus Christ Himself taught that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost was an "unforgivable sin." {{s||Matthew|12|31-32}}
 +
||
 +
*[[Unforgivable sin]]
 +
|-
 +
|There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God.||
 +
*Latter-day Saints believe that there is no salvation without accepting Jesus Christ as our Saviour and Redeemer. Salvation is obtained by receiving Jesus and his atoning sacrifice. The statement presented in the book is nonsense.  All save the sons of perdition are saved.  All will be resurrected.
 +
*A fullness of salvation requires accepting the words of ALL the prophets--including those who wrote the Bible, and including Joseph Smith.
 +
*If one believes that you have to accept the Bible witness to be saved, then how can one fault Latter-day Saints for believing that another prophet's witness must also be accepted? LDS doctrine saves infidels and non-Christians in a resurrection of glory, and provides for their evangelization after death.
 +
||
 +
*[[Joseph Smith's status in LDS belief]]
 +
|}
 +
-->
 
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}
 
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}
  
 
[[fr:Specific works/Becoming Gods/Use of sources]]
 
[[fr:Specific works/Becoming Gods/Use of sources]]

Revision as of 19:58, 25 March 2011

  1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3


Index of Claims
A work by author: Richard Abanes
 Quotes by this author

Source Analysis, Sorted by Page Number

Page Person Cited Source Cited Article

76, 368n143
  • Truman G. Madsen, "B.H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon," Brigham Young University Studies 19 no. 4 (1979), 427. PDF link
  • [A version also appears in Truman G. Madsen, "B.H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon," in Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins, edited by Noel B. Reynolds and Charles D. Tate (eds.), (Provo, Utah : Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University ; Salt Lake City, Utah : Distributed by Bookcraft, 1996 [1982]),7–27. ISBN 0884944697 GospeLink]

Madsen-B.H. Roberts and the Book of Mormon

184

The Book of Mormon and Jesus Christ's conception

273, 446n91

 Robert L. Millet

Changing Biblical text?

Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Becoming_Gods/Use_of_sources&oldid=85529"