Jump to content

James White, Beating That Poor Deadhorse Yet Again.


David Waltz

Recommended Posts

Yesterday, James White began his blog post with this gem:

Mormonism continues to show great shame for its own roots and its own history, resulting in the (dishonest) rewriting of its own history. One of the most embarrassing teachings of the LDS Church and its leaders has to do with the teaching that Jesus is the physical offspring of Elohim, the Father, who likewise has a physical body. That is, that Jesus was physically begotten in a sexual union between the Father and Mary. (http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=2382 .)

And towards the end of his diatribe he wrote:

We can add, then, to the conclusions of Peterson and Ricks, the following from Robinson: this doctrine is again a speculation, based primarily in the nineteenth century opinions of certain unnamed LDS leaders and members.These opinions have never been included among the official doctrines of the LDS faith, and have not appeared in any official church publications during the lifetime of Stephen Robinson. Those who say otherwise (which would include this author) are misrepresenting Mormonism.

For most Mormons, and for most Christians who have not read widely in LDS sources, such should be sufficient. Three LDS scholars, Ph.D.s all, have pronounced the idea that God the Father literally and physically begat the Son in the flesh a mere nineteenth century speculation. What more could be said?

The problem is, history stands unalterably opposed to every single claim made by all three authors. As we will now document, this doctrine has been taught consistently by every single General Authority of the LDS Church who has addressed this topic up to this present day! (Emphasis in the original.)

Yet another example from the pen of James in which he boldly shouts to the world that Mormon scholarsâ?? assessments and reflections on their own faith cannot be trusted while those from an ardent anti-Mormon can, and must, be accepted (as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth).

My-oh-myâ?¦

The Beachbum

Link to comment

>> Mr. White is a liar, there is no truth in him.>>

But, then it may be something more sinisterâ?¦

Over on James Swanâ??s blog (one of few persons James White allows to post on his AOMIN blog) someone made the comment that James White might be a â??Jesuit agentâ?; the person making the comment forwarded the claim as a possible explanation for what he/she thought was shoddy apologetic method on Jamesâ?? part.

(I think this person was joking, but I cannot be sureâ?¦)

Now, a little food-for-thought: perhaps Jamesâ?? is not a â??Jesuit agentâ? but rather, an agent for the Danites!!! :P

The Beachbum

Link to comment

Mr. White is a liar, there is no truth in him. :P

If Mr White believes what he said...then he is not a liar. Jesus said to not judge by the flesh. By his posts which are his fruits we can judge them. We can say that Mr. White posts are lies...but that does not make Mr. White a liar just a person who errs and has taken evil for good.

LDS must live the higher laws....accusing blaming and condemning is what Judas did and the Lord called him a devil for it.

Peace be unto you

bert10

Link to comment

It's an article of faith among some of my critics that I really don't believe what I say.

Saying this helps them, somehow.

While I have no love for White, and I'm sure you believe what you say, I wonder how you would respond to his present set of allegations as to the facts of LDS teaching.

Link to comment

White is writing to a very specific audience -- those who support him.

This is a hallmark of any antimormon ministry == they are not talking to the Mormons but to those who support their ministry. "Stick it to the Mormons" keeps the contributions coming in.

Link to comment

It's an article of faith among some of my critics that I really don't believe what I say.

Hugh Nibley noted this disbelief among his professional associates that he could actually believe in angels, gold plates, modern prophets -- in Mormonism.

Link to comment
While I have no love for White, and I'm sure you believe what you say, I wonder how you would respond to his present set of allegations as to the facts of LDS teaching.

I would say what I've already said many times: The notion that the Father begat Jesus by means of physical intercourse with Mary is not and has never been official Church doctrine. It rests to a large extent on certain nineteenth century speculations among the Brethren. The fact is that we don't know and don't claim to know the mechanism of Christ's conception. What we have always affirmed, and what is theologically crucial to affirm, is that Jesus is and was literally the Son of the Father.

Link to comment

Yesterday, James White began his blog post with this gem:

And towards the end of his diatribe he wrote:

Yet another example from the pen of James in which he boldly shouts to the world that Mormon scholarsâ?? assessments and reflections on their own faith cannot be trusted while those from an ardent anti-Mormon can, and must, be accepted (as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth).

My-oh-myâ?¦

The Beachbum

Why waste your time reprinting this guys dump?

Link to comment

I would say what I've already said many times: The notion that the Father begat Jesus by means of physical intercourse with Mary is not and has never been official Church doctrine. It rests to a large extent on certain nineteenth century speculations among the Brethren. The fact is that we don't know and don't claim to know the mechanism of Christ's conception. What we have always affirmed, and what is theologically crucial to affirm, is that Jesus is and was literally the Son of the Father.

A spiritual artificial incemination ?.

Link to comment

I would say what I've already said many times: The notion that the Father begat Jesus by means of physical intercourse with Mary is not and has never been official Church doctrine. It rests to a large extent on certain nineteenth century speculations among the Brethren. The fact is that we don't know and don't claim to know the mechanism of Christ's conception. What we have always affirmed, and what is theologically crucial to affirm, is that Jesus is and was literally the Son of the Father.

A person who has been a Mormon understands this. But outsiders do not see the difference between what LDS Leaders say, write or publish and what is really doctrine.

Mormonism has an unusual way of managing information that is not understood by the outside world.

The LDS Priesthood is part of this unusual way of communication of sacred vs. the profane.

In theory Mormonism everything is done according to a information and authoritive protocols. An understanding of the protocol enables Mormons to divide what is official and not official.

Mormonism has its own information management system-- with its own rules. Mormons learn to used these rules to filter out the official from the mere speculations of its leaders.

That is the Mormon Way-- but not the Way of Biblical Christianity.

Those who Mormonism from the view of how religious information flows in the Biblical Christianity view the statements of LDS leaders,(weather within LDS protocols or not) as real Mormon teachings. To a non-Mormon the idea that the Father had sex with Mary appears without a doubt to be an official LDS teaching from the LDS oracles.

I would say what I've already said many times: The notion that the Father begat Jesus by means of physical intercourse with Mary is not and has never been official Church doctrine. It rests to a large extent on certain nineteenth century speculations among the Brethren. The fact is that we don't know and don't claim to know the mechanism of Christ's conception. What we have always affirmed, and what is theologically crucial to affirm, is that Jesus is and was literally the Son of the Father.

A person who has been a Mormon understands this. But outsiders do not see the difference between what LDS Leaders say, write or publish and what is really doctrine.

Mormonism has an unusual way of managing information that is not understood by the outside world.

The LDS Priesthood is part of this unusual way of communication of sacred vs. the profane.

In theory Mormonism everything is done according to a information and authoritive protocols. An understanding of the protocol enables Mormons to divide what is official and not official.

Mormonism has its own information management system-- with its own rules. Mormons learn to used these rules to filter out the official from the mere speculations of its leaders.

That is the Mormon Way-- but not the Way of Biblical Christianity.

Those who Mormonism from the view of how religious information flows in the Biblical Christianity view the statements of LDS leaders,(weather within LDS protocols or not) as real Mormon teachings. To a non-Mormon the idea that the Father had sex with Mary appears without a doubt to be an official LDS teaching from the LDS oracles.

Link to comment
A person who has been a Mormon understands this. But outsiders do not see the difference between what LDS Leaders say, write or publish and what is really doctrine.

Which is why the Church standard for doctrine is publication by the Church itself and has been so for decades. In fact, there is a very recent news release given by the Church on this very subject.....

Link to comment

QUOTE

A person who has been a Mormon understands this. But outsiders do not see the difference between what LDS Leaders say, write or publish and what is really doctrine.

Which is why the Church standard for doctrine is publication by the Church itself and has been so for decades. In fact, there is a very recent news release given by the Church on this very subject...

This suggests that SLC/LDS Church is smaller sect within the Larger Latter-Day Saint Movement.

Anyone outside the SLC/LDS system considers what ever Joseph Smith said must also be held true to all Latter-Day Saints. This is the price paid by SLC/LDS for being creedless.

What would make a 'doctrine' in SLC/LDS Mormonism seems to be a much different kind of information or truth than what consitutes a 'doctine' in Mainstream Christianity. MOrmonism has a different set of labels for things it considers true-- the rest of the religious world calls them doctrines-- but Mormonism does not label them as such-- rather calls them 'principles'.

For example--

GHB said --

There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else." ...

Yet LeGrand Richards wrote--

"There is a statement often repeated in the Church, and while it is not in one of the Standard Church Works, it is accepted as church doctrine, and this is:

'As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.'"

Joseph Smith called this 'truth' a principle-- (not a doctrine)-

â?¦ It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know...that he was once a man like us....
(â??King Follett Discourse,â? )

So in Mormonism somethings that are not 'official doctrine' are still considered true-- but simply NOT called doctrines or creeds-- sometimes called 'principles' of the gospel.

Link to comment

>> Those who Mormonism from the view of how religious information flows in the Biblical Christianity view the statements of LDS leaders,(weather within LDS protocols or not) as real Mormon teachings. To a non-Mormon the idea that the Father had sex with Mary appears without a doubt to be an official LDS teaching from the LDS oracles.>>

Reallyâ?¦does the LDS Prophet and President Harold B. Lee count???

You asked aboutâ?¦the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the Savior. If teachers were wise in speaking of this matter about which the Lord has said very little, they would rest their discussion on this subject with merely the words which are recorded on this subject in Luke 1:34-35: "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Remember that the being who was brought about by [Mary's] conception was a divine personage. We need not question His method to accomplish His purposes. Perhaps we would do well to remember the words of Isaiah 55:8-9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts higher than your thoughts." Let the Lord rest His case with this declaration and wait until He sees fit to tell us more. (Harold B. Lee, The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, edited by Clyde E. Williams, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996, 14 â?? bold emphasis mine.)

The Beachbum

Link to comment

Ah yes, good old "Dr" James White. The guy who put the "fun" in fundamentalist.

As opposed to Paul D, the guy who put the "mental" in there...

Hick,

your pontifications about what "Mormonism" is "really" about are becoming boring. They are starting to remind me of a certain Walter Martin, who once held a meeting in SLC, where he announced that GA's were welcome to come and he(!) would answer their(!) questions about "Mormonism."

You really need to stop trying to pose as an "authority."

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Those who [see?] Mormonism from the view of how religious information flows in the Biblical Christianity view the statements of LDS leaders,(weather within LDS protocols or not) as real Mormon teachings. To a non-Mormon the idea that the Father had sex with Mary appears without a doubt to be an official LDS teaching from the LDS oracles.

So the NON-Mormons get to decide what Mormon doctrine is?

Link to comment
That is the Mormon Way-- but not the Way of Biblical Christianity.

Sorry, I don't buy into your neat contrast. My Christianity is, so far as I can see, just as biblical as your "Biblical Christianity" is. And perhaps even more so.

To a non-Mormon the idea that the Father had sex with Mary appears without a doubt to be an official LDS teaching from the LDS oracles.

Just as non-Catholics often have false or garbled notions of Catholic doctrine, non-Mormons often have false or garbled notions of Mormon doctrine. And, of course, there are people out there who actively and vocally seek to promote such false and garbled notions. We typically call them anti-Mormons.

Link to comment

Sorry, I don't buy into your neat contrast. My Christianity is, so far as I can see, just as biblical as your "Biblical Christianity" is. And perhaps even more so.

Just as non-Catholics often have false or garbled notions of Catholic doctrine, non-Mormons often have false or garbled notions of Mormon doctrine. And, of course, there are people out there who actively and vocally seek to promote such false and garbled notions. We typically call them anti-Mormons.

Hick thinks he counts based on his former membership.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...