Mormonism and the Trinity

[Markk]

Hi Mola

"Very gladly would the Lord give to everyone eternal life, but since that blessing can come only on merit-through the faithful performance of duty-only those who are worthy shall receive it." - Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie, 2:, p.5

Here is the verse I said I would find for you, the Prophet here taught that The Lord could not just give "eternal Life" to everyone, but that a person can only receive this by earning, through merit by works, an opportunity to become worthy enough to to be in Heavenly Fathers presence. This th e Individual (merited) salvation I discussed.

"Each of us has been sent to earth by our Heavenly Father to merit eternal life" - Robert D. Hales, "Personal Revelation: The Teachings and Examples of the Prophets", October 2007 General Conference

This is clear, that mankind was sent here with a opportunity to, by merit, return to their Father.

"The first effect (of the atonement) is to secure to all mankind alike, exemption from the penalty of the fall, thus, providing a plan of General Salvation. The second effect is to open a way for Individual Salvation whereby mankind may secure remission of personal sins. As these sins are the result of individual acts, it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements - obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel" (A. of F., p. 87).

This shows that atonement gets the foot in the door (providing a plan) for mankind to work individually to secure forgiveness. Here the Apostle teaches that it is "just" that this individual salvation comes from personal effort to the prescribed requirements which are eternal laws and prescribed works.

"Salvation is twofold: General - that which comes to all men irrespective of a belief (in this life) in Christ - and Individual - that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel" (D. of S., Vol. I, p. 134).

The Prophet speaks here of the twofold LDS plan of salvation. General (unmerited), and Individual (merited). General which goes to all mankind, even if they don't want it. Individual salvation through personal works through eternal law. These two type are also called "general salvation" and "Universal salvation."

"The gospel of Jesus Christ has always been essentially a plan for living more abundantly. To do so requires righteous, worthwhile effort and application. If we are to pattern our lives in accordance with the divine example set for us by the Savior, we must attain to that stature by releasing and developing our capacities to the fullest through devoted service. Only in this way may we become worthy examples of the kingdom of God on earth and merit consideration for membership in the kingdom of God in heaven. ("Power Through Service," Millennial Star 118 [9 October 1956]: 298.) - Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.330

This future Prophet taught that that one must "merit consideration" to be with Heavenly Father.

"Thus, brothers and sisters, along with the great and free gift of the universal and personal resurrection there is also the personal possibility of meriting eternal life." - Neal A. Maxwell, â??Apply the Atoning Blood of Christâ? Ensign, Nov 1997, 22; message from October 1997 General Conference

NM basically taught that through the resurrection...one, all mankind is "universally saved", and...two, through personal works mankind has the "possibility" of "meriting" a final estate with Father in Heaven.

And on the individual effect of the atonement he wrote..." makes it possible for any and every soul to obtain absolution from the effect of personal sins, through the mediation of Christ; but such saving intersession is to be invoked by individual effort as manifested through faith, repentance, and continued works of righteousness. The laws under which individual salvation is obtainable have been prescribed by Christ, whose right it is to say how the blessings made possible by His own sacrifice shall be administered...That the blessing of redemption from individual sins, while open to obtain, is nevertheless conditioned on individual effort,...( Talmage AoF 89-90)

Again the Apostle talks about Individual salvation and that it is on individual effort.

Mola, this is core LDS theology and while LDS thought seems to be changing, and that's a good thing, these are still LDS teachings, they have never as far as I know been retracted as being false teachings.

If I am wrong here show me what these quotes mean? Tell me the difference between the two type of salvation?

You wrote:

Dude, if I was taught what you claim as LDS I would leave the church too, you clearly have very little understanding of our faith. The worst part is that you know that you are misrepresenting things, you just like to play dumb. Remember that Christ will use the same judgement on you that you have used on us. I will stand against you at the last day for the falsehoods and lies that you have spread here. I am not playing any games.

You don't need to answer if you don't want too, just read the above quotes by the GA's, do a cf in context and then make a choice whether it is a teaching or not.

take care

Mark

John 1:12

[Joseph Antley]

Has anyone denied that works play a part in salvation, as most of these quotes containing common and well-known doctrine state?

[Markk]

Hi Greg,

(And as I already pointed pointed out once already, the part about "only two churches" is an apocalyptic section.)

And? 4 For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. D&C 115:4

In the Last days, which would include the Apocalyptic "days" The BoM defines that the Church of the Lamb of God are "saints".(see below)

The Church of the Devil is every evil and worldly org. that perverts the pure and perfect gospel and fights against Jesus. Seeing that the LDS church teaches that they alone have the perfect gospel, wouldn't this include all but Latter Day Saints?

"Brigham Young says many Christian faiths and even 'infidels' will be on the earth during the Millennium, not just the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS. Thus, the "Church of the Lamb of God" in this sense includes more than just the LDS. Q.E.D."

..."I beheld that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God..." (1 Ne. 14:12)

LDS.org definition of a saint is as follows:

The word saint is a translation of a Greek word also rendered â??holy,â? the fundamental idea being that of consecration or separation for a sacred purpose; but since what was set apart for God must be without blemish, the word came to mean â??free from blemish,â? whether physical or moral. In the N.T. the saints are all those who by baptism have entered into the Christian covenant

How can saints be 'infidels'...?

In the same vein, D&C 76 says that celestial and terrestrial will descend with Christ to rule--they're part of the Church of the Lamb in the apocalyptic sense. They aren't thrust down to hell.

D&C 76 reads..."71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of the moon differs from the sun in the firmament. "

The Church of the Firstborn is just another name for the Church of the Lamb, both refer to the Church of Jesus Christ Greg, and this verse is clear that those in the terrestial Kingdom do not belong to the Chruch of the Lamb, Firstborn, or Christ.

How can people in the terrestial kingdom be a saint?

I post here a snippet from Book of Mormon Reference Companion (general Editor Dennis L. Largey, published by Deseret Book, I"m citing from pp. 310-315. I suggested getting it and reading the whole entry on "Great and Abominable Church" for the full details):

Is this an official authorized book, in other words does it speak as LDS official theology, I have never heard of Largey, is he a GA? Why should one believe this over the BoM when it says that the Church of the lamb are Saints and that the folks the terrestial kingdom are not part of the Church of the Firstborn?

So, you haven't answered my question--by your lights, am I allowed to announce or insist that I regard Jesus as Lord, God, Savior, and normative in my life? Or is even that denied me by you?

Sure you can. All I have ever said here is that I believe LDS theology is not Christian theology, and that the LDS church uses the name Christian in an generic sense and term.

Mark

John 1:12

[Daniel Peterson]

Greg, I do agree with you. Markk is misrepresenting us on this point, as he has on a number of others.

All I have ever said here is that I believe LDS theology is not Christian theology

You're also welcome to believe that the stars are God's daisy chain and that every time a fairy blows its wee nose a baby is born. Just don't expect us to agree with you.

and that the LDS church uses the name Christian in an generic sense and term.

"The LDS Church" -- by which I assume you mean the membership of the Church -- uses the term Christian the same way that people typically do where those members reside.

Mormons have no uniquely LDS, peculiar, idiosyncratic definition of Christian. It's you folks who have apparently sought to redefine it to mean "saved" or "resembling us in sufficient detail to gain our approval" or "Spirit-baptized born-again Bible-alone fundamentalist Protestant" or whatever you imagine it to signify.

[Markk]

Hi Joesph,

Has anyone denied that works play a part in salvation, as most of these quotes containing common and well-known doctrine state?

I haven't? Works are Key to the LDS plan of salvation which include obedience to eternal laws. In fact, according to LDS theology works are necessary to merit individual salvation. However works have no value in universal salvation, all receive the same " measure " whether one wants it or not, after this works are essential according to LDS theology.

Do you understand the LDS teaching of conditional and unconditional salvation's?

Mark

[Tanyan]

Hi Joesph,

I haven't? Works are Key to the LDS plan of salvation which include obedience to eternal laws. In fact, according to LDS theology works are necessary to merit individual salvation. However works have no value in universal salvation, all receive the same " measure " whether one wants it or not, after this works are essential according to LDS theology.

Do you understand the LDS teaching of conditional and unconditional salvation's?

Mark

Works [Labors Of Love] Born out of Love for GOD and Jesus Christ are not to Save us [merit individual salvation] but to say thank you for the Awesome Sacrifice on our behalf by Jesus Christ and to show that we want to stay in salvation from spiritual death [Conditional salvation]. Resurrection from the grave is unconditional.

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Greg Smith]

And? 4 For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. D&C 115:4

In the Last days, which would include the Apocalyptic "days" The BoM defines that the Church of the Lamb of God are "saints".(see below)

The Church of the Devil is every evil and worldly org. that perverts the pure and perfect gospel and fights against Jesus. Seeing that the LDS church teaches that they alone have the perfect gospel, wouldn't this include all but Latter Day Saints?

[snip the rest]

As I've said before, this kind of impenetrable incapacity to understand must be either innate or willful.

I can do nothing with either, it would seem.

Dan wins again. (" En vieillissant on devient plus fou, et plus sage." - Rochefoucauld, Maximes).

Greg

[Joseph Antley]

Hi Joesph,

I haven't? Works are Key to the LDS plan of salvation which include obedience to eternal laws. In fact, according to LDS theology works are necessary to merit individual salvation. However works have no value in universal salvation, all receive the same " measure " whether one wants it or not, after this works are essential according to LDS theology.

Do you understand the LDS teaching of conditional and unconditional salvation's?

Mark

I wasn't asking for an explanation. You provided a bunch of quotes from LDS General Authorities about salvation and works/"merit"/obedience as if it was a "gotcha" post where you refuted someone else. Did someone claim that works are unrelated to salvation in this thread that you are arguing with, or did you just provide those for fun?

All Latter-day Saints (at least, all the ones I've met) recognize the importance of obedience and good works. I'm well aware of the different meanings of "salvation" in LDS theology, although you don't seem to be willing to escape your Protestant paradigm to see how that the word "salvation" means different things in different contexts. And I don't get the point you were trying to make in either of your posts.

[zerinus]

Hi Z

Are you saying that the BoM teaches that the â??Church of the Lamb of Godâ? (the church of Christ), includes Jwâ??s, Catholics, Protestants...etc. In other words their churchâ??s are true?

The word â??churchâ? has more than one definition or meaning. It can refer to a building, a place of worship. It can refer to the ecclesiastical structure by which a particular denomination is identified; in other words, it can refer to a particular denomination. It can refer to a local branch or unit of a church; for example, in the epistles of Paul and in the Revelation, it often talks of â??churchesâ? (plural), by which is meant the local congregations or units of the church. Or it can refer to an assembly, a congregation, or group of people who share a common idealâ??i.e. Christianity, or one of the interpretations of it. That is the most literal etymological meaning of it. I did a search on the Internet, and found some interesting definitions of a church. Here is one set of definitions I found on WordNet:

• one of the groups of Christians who have their own beliefs and forms of worship.
  
• a place for public (especially Christian) worship: â??the church was emptyâ?.
  
• a service conducted in a house of worship: â??donâ??t be late for churchâ?.
  
• the body of people who attend or belong to a particular local church: â??our church is hosting a picnic next weekâ?.
  

On another website I found the following definition of a church:

The word translated â??churchâ? in the English Bible is

ekklesia

. This word is the Greek words

kaleo

(to call), with the prefix

ek

(out). Thus, the word means â??the called out ones.â? However, the English word â??churchâ? does not come from

ekklesia

but from the word

kuriakon

, which means â??dedicated to the Lord.â? This word was commonly used to refer to a holy place or temple. By the time of Jeromeâ??s translation of the New Testament from Greek to Latin, it was customary to use a derivative of kuriakon to translate ekklesia. Therefore, the word church is a poor translation of the word ekklesia since it implies a sacred building, or temple. A more accurate translation would be â??assemblyâ? because the term ekklesia was used to refer to a group of people who had been called out to a meeting. It was also used as a synonym for the word synagogue, which also means to â??come together,â? i.e. a gathering. â??Body of Christâ? Since believers have been united with Christ through spiritual baptism, they are sometimes corporately referred to as the body of Christ. (Rom. l2:4-5; 1 Cor. l2:11,13,l8,27; Col. l:l8; Eph. 5:30) The idea seems to be that the group of Christians in the world constitute the physical representation of Christ on earth. It is also a metaphor which demonstrates the interdependence of members in the church, while at the same time demonstrating their diversity from one another. (Rom. 12:4; 1 Cor. 12:14-17)

Source

.

During the Reformation the Protestants came up with the idea of the â??invisible churchâ? (which actually has an older history). See here and here. They said that Godâ??s true church is not â??denominational,â? but its true membership is only known to God. This has its echo in the parable of the wheat and the tears. The â??wheatâ? represent the true church of God, and the â??taresâ? represent the church of the devil. For most of its history the wheat and the tares are mingled together so that it is not possible to distinguish between them. But as we get closer to the end, that distinction begins to become more and more apparent, as the two groups begin to polarize and take sides. This is also taught in modern LDS scripture.

So to give a short answer to your question, yes, some Jews, Catholics, Muslims, protestants etc. will in fact be part of Godâ??s true church, even though they may not know it. They will be part of that â??invisibleâ? church. They are among the â??wheat,â? mingled with the â??taresâ?. Their ultimate destiny is to be saved and exalted, although they may not be aware of it themselves at the moment. While on the other hand, there are some Mormons who are of the church of the devil.

Your on the record many times here saying, that my â??churchâ? (protestant), is an apostate Christian church...how does this all work?

Denominationally speaking, yes. There is only one true denominational church, and that is the LDS Church. But ultimately just as the church of the devil is not denominational, Godâ??s true church is not denominational either. In other words, just as members of church of the devil may be found in all of those denominations, members of the church of the Lamb of God is found in them as well. See D&C 137:7â??10.

If there are only two churchs, the Church of the Lamb of God (COLG), and the Church of the Devil , and if the COLG is the only true church as the BOM relates, then how can the LDS church be the â??only true churchâ? as the LDS claims?

Again, bearing in mind the different definitions of â??churchâ? given above, there is only one true denominational church, among many, which is the LDS Church; and there is also only on true non-denominational church, which stands in contrast to only one church of the devil, which is also non-denominational.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If I am wrong here show me what these quotes mean? Tell me the difference between the two type of salvation?

You wrote:

You don't need to answer if you don't want too, just read the above quotes by the GA's, do a cf in context and then make a choice whether it is a teaching or not.

take care

Mark

John 1:12

You are wrong and you continue to misrepresent and take things out of context. I am not going to go through this any more with you. You have lied about my faith and distorted it. Greg and Dan have done an amzing job at showing how you have, that fact taht you refuse to see it is most sad. Don't worry my day is not ruined. I will merely point out what is either a lie or a misrepresentation. I will not expalin it as it has already been done. You, as the scriptures say, are a wolf in sheeps clothing.

I suppose you also think the Godmakers represent offical doctrine of the church and is accurate?

[Markk]

Hi Mola,

I suppose you also think the Godmakers represent offical doctrine of the church and is accurate?

I believe each item should be addressed in context of the sorce and rise or fall individually. Does go makers as a book represent offical doctrine no, does it contain in quote form offical LDS doctrine, yes.

I quoted LDS doctrine from GA's, how am I taking them out of context?

Take care

Mark

[Joseph Antley]

Hi Mola,

I believe each item should be addressed in context of the sorce and rise or fall individually. Does go makers as a book represent offical doctrine no, does it contain in quote form offical LDS doctrine, yes.

I quoted LDS doctrine from GA's, how am I taking them out of context?

Take care

Mark

Markk, what satisfaction does finding fault with the LDS Church, its leaders, and its doctrines give you?

[Greg Smith]

The word "church" has more than one definition or meaning....[snip]

Again, bearing in mind the different definitions of "church" given above, there is only one true denominational church, among many, which is the LDS Church; and there is also only on true non-denominational church, which stands in contrast to only one church of the devil, which is also non-denominational.

The Z-man has it exactly right.

Which is honestly not really much to his credit, since it's pretty simple. :-)

But he said it very well.

Greg

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hi Mola,

I believe each item should be addressed in context of the sorce and rise or fall individually. Does go makers as a book represent offical doctrine no, does it contain in quote form offical LDS doctrine, yes.

I quoted LDS doctrine from GA's, how am I taking them out of context?

Take care

Mark

The propblem is a little more deep then that, as has been demostrated on this very thread by DCP and Greg Smith. Take for isntance the part about the church of the Devil or great and abominable church, your position is that if it isn't the one true church it must be the church of the devil, that in and of itself is a gross misrepresentation. You are playing coy on purpose and it won't work. Things are not as black and white as you think it is out there. Sometimes they are and sometimes they appear to be.

Oh to answer your main question, I have already been down this road with you several times before and it appeared to have no effect trying to expand to present the correct context for you. It would be a huge waste of my time to do it again, I might as well just talk to the wall as it is just as productive.

Like I said I will merely point out when you are lieing/ misrepresenting about church doctrine.

[cksalmon]

Is White any more cogent and informed about the Church of Jesus Christ on free webcasts than in books that he writes and sells for money? I somehow doubt it.

Having given "ol' James" several reads, I doubt listening to spontaneous remarks of his on-line is going to change my opinion of his particular brand of religious intolerance and polemic.

I can't speak to the value of his work on Roman Catholicism, but I surely wouldn't trust it further than I could throw him based on how badly he (mis)understands my own faith.

I just don't get the idea of deciding to "minister" to people, and then spending my time attacking straw man versions of their beliefs. Perhaps this is a special use of the term "ministery' along the line of "Christian" meaning "late-twentieth century conservative Protestant." :-0

Greg

Greg--

I will respond to your post perhaps tomorrow. I did want to take this opportunity to let those who may be interested know that Alpha and Omega is live-streaming a dialogue between White and Imam Shamsi Ali, the Director of the Jamaica Muslim Center in Queens, NY, right now.

My suspicion, based on significant past experiences, is that one will find White's interaction to be forceful yet measured, balanced and respectful. Enjoy!

cks

**************************************************************

Plug this link into WMP, iTunes, Winamp, or the player of your choice. (One hopes it will come off better than AOmin's first attempt at live-streaming a debate/dialogue--which failed due to technical difficulties.)

(http://stream.aomin.org:8000/dl.m3u)

**************************************************************

[Markk]

Markk, what satisfaction does finding fault with the LDS Church, its leaders, and its doctrines give you?

Hi Antley,

None what so ever. That would be like me asking you..." what satisfaction do you get by believing you belong to the only true church". Why not ask me why I post here, that might be a better question?

take care

Mark

John 1:12

[Daniel Peterson]

I will respond to your post perhaps tomorrow. I did want to take this opportunity to let those who may be interested know that Alpha and Omega is live-streaming a dialogue between White and Imam Shamsi Ali, the Director of the Jamaica Muslim Center in Queens, NY, right now.

My suspicion, based on significant past experiences, is that one will find White's interaction to be forceful yet measured, balanced and respectful. Enjoy!

cks, in view of your evident enthusiasm for posting commercials on behalf of Mr. White, I'm less surprised than I was the other day that you felt impelled to insult Tanyan and to call me a "jerk" when we failed to show the appropriate reverence for your guy.

I apologize for committing the crime of l

[Joseph Antley]

Hi Antley,

None what so ever. That would be like me asking you..." what satisfaction do you get by believing you belong to the only true church".

No, it's not like that all. You are eager to find fault with the LDS Church. Why is that?

Why not ask me why I post here, that might be a better question?

Because that's a question I'm not that interested in, although it might be easier for you to answer.

[jwhitlock]

My suspicion, based on significant past experiences, is that one will find White's interaction to be forceful yet measured, balanced and respectful. Enjoy!

And yet, as has been noted, this is quite the opposite of what our experiences reading what White publishes have been.

The following, relatively mild (for White) quote from his web site, introducing an article he writes about FARMS, gives us a taste of how "balanced and respectful" he can be:

A FARMS publication shows that nothing has changed at BYU: falsehoods remain standard fare.

White can only be considered "balanced" if your foundational viewpoint is that anything negative about Mormonism must, by default, be true. Perhaps a reminder is in order that such a viewpoint is anything but realistic.

[cksalmon]

cks, in view of your evident enthusiasm for posting commercials on behalf of Mr. White, I'm less surprised than I was the other day that you felt impelled to insult Tanyan and to call me a "jerk" when we failed to show the appropriate reverence for your guy.

I apologize for committing the crime of l

[Daniel Peterson]

And here I was thinking that perhaps you might be one who would be interested, Dr. Peterson, given your professional interest in Islam.

I don't listen to the radio or anything spoken when I'm writing. And I'm writing.

your juvenile taunt ("Dr. Dr. Dr. White", etc.) . . . juvenile taunts . . . plain and general badness

I'm sorry to learn that you're utterly without a sense of humor when it comes to your hero.

If I wanted to be genuinely insulting about Mr. White, which I don't, I could do it.

And, yes, Dr. Peterson, you came off as a jerk. I don't necessarily expect many here to agree with my assessment. But, given that it is my personal and considered assessment, I'm not dependent upon a larger social disapprobation of your behavior to support it.

I'm probably never going to treat Mr. White with enough solemnity and reverence to merit your approval in this regard. I apologize in advance.

Nor was I dependent upon the roundly critical reaction of the MDB community to WjExMo's potentially-criminal weirdness to know that it was just plain wrong. I unequivocably denounced it as soon as I read WjExMo's positive response to my obvious attempt to negate with ridicule his OP. Oddly, many of those rabid critics of the LDS Church there agreed with me.

I'm properly appreciative. I mean that.

Differing degrees of badness? Certainly.

By multiple orders of magnitude.

One was a psychopathological threat. The other -- whether you credit my account or not, I'm in a privileged position, epistemologically speaking, to give it -- was a bit of needling.

My point is that I attempt to call things as I see them

That's fine. That's what the board is for.

As God is my witness, I can honestly say that I have learned to attempt to read Mormon works fairly, to consciously refrain from derogating Mormon authors for any merely human reason, and to read their words in the most charitable way possible, integrating my own poor understanding of their worldview, before passing judgment.

I'm glad to hear it, and I'm inclined to believe it.

My suspicion is that anyone who refers to someone derogatorily as "Dr. Dr. Dr. White" is not doing likewise.

You've grossly inflated the significance of a minor and (especially in view of my none-too-fond memories of interactions with him) not particularly ill-humored jab.

But if you care to demonstrate how my reading of non-Mormon writing is unfair and uncharitable, you're genuinely welcome to do so. Since, among other things, I don't attack other people's religious beliefs -- you'll have a very difficult time locating anything from me in print that doesn't, in fact, do the opposite, when it mentions them at all -- I don't predict an easy time for you. Perhaps you'll want to examine my recent article on "Mormonism and the Trinity." I cite lots and lots of non-Mormon theologians in it. Whether unfairly and uncharitably remains to be seen. If you can find me doing to them anything at all like what Mr. White routinely does to me and others of my faith, I'll be astonished.

The question is whether or not you are willing to treat a fellow human being as an object of ridicule. You apparently are.

Sheesh.

Alas, I can't accept your feigned and intentionally-barbed apology, Dr. P. I just wish the level of discourse might be raised by Mormon scholars of your caliber, rather than plateaued or lowered.

"Never make people laugh," Sen. Thomas Corwin once advised William McKinley. "If you would succeed in life, you must be solemn, solemn as an ***. All great monuments are built over solemn asses.â?

[cksalmon]

I'm sorry to learn that you're utterly without a sense of humor when it comes to your hero.

You're misreading me (for whatever reason), as I think should be clear.

I'm probably never going to treat Mr. White with enough solemnity and reverence to merit your approval in this regard. I apologize in advance.

You're misreading me (for whatever reason), as I think should be clear.

cks

[Greg Smith]

My suspicion, based on significant past experiences, is that one will find White's interaction to be forceful yet measured, balanced and respectful.

Perhaps White has some type of mental disconnect when he engages the writing neurons instead of the speaking neurons. Thus, while being forcefully measured, balanced, and respectful in oral discourse, when he sits down to write about my faith, one is treated to such gems as:

[Is the Mormon my brother...]

* "Mormons and Christians worship different Gods."

* It is a wonderful gift of grace to be able to join together with like-minded people and worship God in spirit and in truth. I am reminded that we are praying to the same God, who is powerful to save and to answer prayer. I cannot so pray with a Mormon person. We are worshipping different gods. (p. 170, italics in original)

He also has a clear like for "Dr." Walter Martin (who wrote a forward to one book) which doesn't speak well of balance or respect.

I also love how White says he carries around LDS books so he can show Mormons what we taught and teach. A similar species of arrogance mingled with ignorance has been on display in this thread.

And, this is just classic:

We are often asked how intelligent, highly-trained people can be deceived by such transparently untrue systems as Mormonism. For most, the answer is simply spiritual deception. But for those who are actively involved in promoting spiritual deception, the answer goes deeper. Even in the midst of writing an article that is specifically heretical, which presents to its readers a false god, a false Christ, and a false gospel, Daniel Peterson has to find a way to take a personal, unwarranted shot at someone he knows he cannot deceive but whose work has been used to deliver many from the very errors he is seeking to promote. There was no reason whatsoever for the inclusion of these words, outside of the furtherance of a cause. That cause is to denigrate and marginalize anyone who refuses to bow to the overwhelming "scholarship" of F.A.R.M.S. and its attempted defenses of the religion of Joseph Smith.

The reader should consider well: if Peterson is unfaithful in handling the little elements of truth, why should anyone assume he is handling the entire topic in a scholarly, let alone fair, manner?

http://vintage.aomin.org/TDASPet.html

Yup, balance, measured, and respectful--as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I am apparently "deceived" by something that is "transparently untrue." So, either I'm a victim of "spiritual deception" or I'm promoting it, in the face of overwhelming intellectual evidence to the contrary. No other options, apparently.

But, being a Calvinist, one presumes that White just can't help himself. :-) God made him that way. But, he also made me vulnerable to the transparent deception of Joseph Smith, who couldn't help himself either. :-) Them's the breaks, I guess.

Somehow, teasing about White's issue with his three degrees just doesn't quite seem to measure up to this. Dan must be slipping.

(Why is it that so many conservative protestant anti-Mormons think so highly of degrees granted by man that they will buy them just to stick "Dr." before their name?) And, you know....somehow I can't picture Peter or Paul buying a mail-order degree from Alexandria. Just seems bizarre.

Greg

[Daniel Peterson]

You think it was a serious insult that revealed me to be, at least in the act of leveling it, a jerk, and that it points to the likelihood of fundamental unfairness in my approach to non-Mormons.

I say it was a none-too-serious passing jibe, particularly in view of the long history of Mr. White's negative treatment of me, and that you will never find me treating non-Mormons the way Mr. White invariably treats Mormons.

How am I misreading you?

[cksalmon]

You think it was a serious insult that revealed me to be, at least in the act of leveling it, a jerk, and that it points to the likelihood of fundamental unfairness in my approach to non-Mormons.

I say it was a none-too-serious passing jibe, particularly in view of the long history of Mr. White's negative treatment of me, and that you will never find me treating non-Mormons the way Mr. White invariably treats Mormons.

How am I misreading you?

(1) "when it comes to your hero"

(2) "I'm probably never going to treat Mr. White with enough solemnity and reverence to merit your approval in this regard."

(1) assumes a false premise.

(2) assumes an inability on your part of which I remain unconvinced.

cks