Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 1

  1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Contents

Response to claims made in "Chapter 1: God the Father"


A FAIR Analysis of:
Mormonism 101
A work by author: Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson
 Chapter 2: Jesus

23

Claim
  • The fallacies of the author's logic become apparent in the opening paragraphs of the chapter. They begin with a quote from Spencer W. Kimball:

Men with keen intelligence got together ... [at] Nicea and created a God. They did not pray for wisdom or revelation. They claimed no revelation from the Lord. They made it just about like a political party would do, and out of their own mortal minds created a God which is still worshiped by the great majority of Christians.
President Spencer W. Kimball,
Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 426.

If the above quote from Mormonism's twelfth president is correct, then the God proclaimed by the Mormon Church is not the same God who is worshiped by millions of Christians today. Few would debate that the concept of God is paramount in any belief system. If two people hope to consider themselves of the same faith, they need to agree on their definition of the Almighty God. If they cannot agree on this vital point, they would be deceiving themselves and others to say that their faiths are the same.

Despite Kimball's claim, many laypeople in the Mormon Church insist that the God they worship is the same God worshiped by millions of Christians throughout the world. The problem with this assumption is that it does not concur with many statements made by the LDS leadership.

  • The authors claim that "many laypeople in the Mormon Church insist that the God they worship is the same God worshiped by millions of Christians throughout the world.

Author's source(s)

  • Spencer W. Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 426.

Response

  • The authors' first fallacy is the use of ambiguous terminology. They wish to confuse a differing understanding of who God is with worshipping another god altogether. To understand the tactic used by the authors, consider the city of Cleveland, Ohio. One of the historical black marks against the city was the pollution quite evident in Lake Erie. Cleveland certainly became a different city once the lake was cleaned up. By the reasoning of the authors, one would conclude that Cleveland, Ohio became Cleveland, Tennessee once Lake Erie was cleaned up.
  • Secondly, the authors beg the question by assuming that doctrines first canonized in the Nicene and related creeds (with which President Kimball profoundly disagreed) were entirely biblical. Leaving aside the truth or falsehood of those creeds, this reviewer has yet to read any biblical text that equates nonbelievers in the creeds with nonbelievers in Christ.
  • For a detailed response, see: Jesus Christ/Latter-day Saints aren't Christians


24

Claim
  • LDS leaders have stated that "worship of the God of Christianity's creeds will not result in salvation." Joseph Smith described these creeds as "an abomination in his sight."

Author's source(s)
  • Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d ed. p. 270.
  • Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p. 55.
  • Bruce R. McConkie, "Our Relationship with the Lord," speech given at BYU devotional, 2 March 1982, p. 3.
Response

25

Claim
  • The authors make the following claim:

"To be sure, historical Christianity has never advocated the belief in a tangible deity."


Response


Not Eternally God

25-27

Claim
  • The authors assert the Mormons do not believe that God is "Eternal," citing Joseph Smith's King Follett discourse. This is interpreted by the authors as describing "the limitations that Mormon leaders place on God."
  • In endnote 8, page 286, the authors also make the following claim:

"Being a polygamist, the LDS Elohim sexually created spirit children with his heavenly wives. All spirit beings in existence were produced this way. The Heavenly Mother doctrine finds no scriptural support within any of the four LDS scriptures."

Author's source(s)

  • Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345.
  • Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 132.
  • Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses 1:123.
  • James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith, p. 430.
  • Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 3:93.
  • Spencer W. Kimball, Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 26.
  • Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 2.
  • Ensign (June 1993), p. 10.

Response


Not Immutable

28

Claim
  • The authors ask if it is the Church's position that God did not know whether Adam and Eve would transgress His commandment.

Response
  • Such a question rather ridiculous, since the Evangelical interpretation of the biblical text implies that the Atonement of Jesus Christ was an afterthought to undo the ill effects of Adam's sin.[2] The LDS position, most succinctly stated in the Pearl of Great Price, is that God counseled with His spirit children concerning the plan and that Jesus Christ's Atonement is not "Plan B." (Moses 4 and Abraham 3)
  • For a detailed response, see: Plan of salvation/Original sin

Not Self-Existent

31

Claim
  • The authors claim that

"Mormonism's view of God is both implausible and unbiblical. It is also illogical since it raises several questions as to how the first intelligence was able to elevate himself to the position of diety."

Author's source(s)

Response


Not Transcendent

32

Claim
  • The authors compare their idea of LDS theology with the Evangelical doctrine of God's transcendence:

God is distinct from His creation and the universe. When discussing the transcendence of God, we need to consider a number of aspects. Not only is the 'person' of God unlike human beings, but His moral character is also unique. He is infinitely exalted above that He has ever created.

Author's source(s)

  • Hunter, The Gospel Through the Ages, 107.
  • Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology: A Voice of Warning, 21.
  • Orson Whitney, quoted in Collected Discourses, ed. Brian H. Stuy, 4.
  • Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, 35.
  • Don Lattin, "Musing with the Prophet," San Francisco Chronicle, 13 April 1997, sec. Z1, p. 3.

Response

  • Leaving aside the authors creation of a straw man argument[3] implying that Latter-day Saints gainsay that God is infinitely exalted above any and all mortal humans, they ignore the Book of Genesis, which states that man is created in God's image. (Genesis 1꞉27) Is it logical to think that man has zero in common with the Creator who chose to make mankind in His image?
  • The authors implicitly criticize President Gordon Hinckley's quote of Lorenzo Snow's couplet. By this, they ignore I John 3:1-3. Do the authors disbelieve that Christians will be like Jesus?
  • The authors disdain alleged LDS disbelief in God's omnipotence. Can God lie? If not, then He is not omnipotent. If He can, why are there scriptures that state that He cannot? (Titus 1꞉2) It is only in this sense that members of the Church disbelieve God's absolute omnipotence. Members of the LDS Church do not question whether God is mighty enough to create the universe, or to effect the Atonement.
  • For a detailed response, see: Nature of God/"God is a man"


33-34

Claim
  • The authors state that Gordon B. Hinckley "made it not clear on whether such a concept was part of Mormon belief."

Author's source(s)
  • Don Lattin, journalist from the San Francisco Chronicle in an interview with President Hinckley in 1997.
  • David Van Biema, Time, 4 August 1997, p. 56.
Response

Not Omnipotent

35

Claim
  • The authors claim that Mormons believe that "God could stop being God."

Author's source(s)
  • W. Cleon Skousen, The First 2,000 Years, p. 355-56.
Response
  • Skousen's work hardly represents LDS doctrine. The authors had to look pretty far from the standard works in order to make such a claim.

Claim
  • The authors claim that "Mormonism has reintroduced polytheism to the modern world."

Response

36

Claim
  • The "Mormon God cannot create ex nihilo, or out of nothing." The authors claim that the "Mormon God" is limited to creating only out of existing matter.

Author's source(s)
  • John Widtsoe, A Rational Theology, p. 12.
Response

Not Omnipresent

37

Claim
  • According to the authors, the "God of Mormonism cannot be personally present everywhere because he dwells in a finite body." They quote Brigham Young:

Some would have us believe that God is present everywhere. It is not so.

Author's source(s)

Response

  • The authors are implying that Mormons deny God's omnipresence. This is incorrect.
  • More of Brigham's quote:

Some would have us believe that God is present everywhere. It is not so. He is no more everywhere present in person than the Father and Son are one in person. The Bible teaches that doctrine precisely as it is.

  • Orson Pratt clarifies the concept of God's omnipresence:

He is omnipresent. Not personally; this would be impossible, for a person can only be in one place at the same instant, whether he be an immortal or a mortal personage; whether he be high, exalted, and filled with all power, wisdom, glory, and greatness, or poor, ignorant, and humble. So far as the materials are concerned, a personage can only occupy one place at the same moment. That is a self-evident truth, one that cannot be controverted. When we speak, therefore, of God being omnipresent we do not mean that His person is omnipresent, we mean that His wisdom, power, glory, greatness, goodness, and all the characteristics of His eternal attributes are manifested and spread abroad throughout all the creations that He has made. He is there by His influence—by His power and wisdom—by His outstretched arm; He, by His authority, occupies the immensity of space. But when we come to His glorious personage, that has a dwelling place—a particular location; but where this location is, is not revealed. Suffice it to say that God is not confined in His personal character to one location. He goes and comes; He visits the various departments of His dominions, gives them counsel and instruction, and presides over them according to His own will and pleasure. (Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses 14:234.)


Notes

  1. ↑ Joseph Smith, Jr., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected by Joseph Fielding Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 346. off-site
  2. ↑ John F. MacArthur, Jr., The Vanishing Conscience; Drawing the Line in a No-Fault, Guilt-Free World (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995), 109-115.
  3. ↑ A "straw man" is a false weak argument built up by an author, which is subsequently torn down. Upon tearing it down, the author implies that not only was the false weak argument destroyed, but also the original argument.


Copyright © 2005–2024 FAIR. This is not an official Web site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The content of this page may not be copied, published, or redistributed without the prior written consent of FAIR.
We welcome your suggestions for improving the content of this FAIR Wiki article.

Sites we recommend:

Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Mormonism_101/Chapter_1&oldid=118457"