Orthodox Christians Are Atheists

[Ahab]

Ahab,

You're putting a very nice, gentle construction on what LDS Church leaders have said, and I respect your right to do so and to approach this subject in your own way, but I don't think I've misunderstood them at all.

You have, though, even though you don't think you have.

Will you acknowledge that it's a very fine line between a God who has no form or substance and no God at all?

Can you even imagine what a God with no form or substance would look like, or what form it would take, or how you would be able to know that such a God actually exists?

Seeing some evidence that God must exist wouldn't tell you what form or shape God has, or even if he has a form or a shape, so how would you ever be able to know that he doesn't have any form or substance?

You can't prove a negative, you know, in the sense of being able to prove or show some type of evidence that he doesn't have any form or substance. That idea you have about God is wrong, and you don't seem to know it is wrong, and you likely never will because even if you saw God someday or touched a body in which he existed you could just dismiss it all away by thinking he took that form for only a moment in time before going back to being without any form or substance.

Pratt thought we were more dangerous than regular, self-avowed atheists, because, he claimed, we claim to believe in God but are in reality covert atheists.

I'm pretty sure the "covert atheists" part of that statement is your own rephrase of what you think he meant.

You are more dangerous than atheists, though, meaning more dangerous to yourselves, because atheists will someday see God and then know they were wrong while you'll likely continue to think God doesn't have any form or substance unless he chooses to temporarily take a form before going back to what to us would appear to be nothing.

p.s. I'll also give you this, Rob.

Anybody who says someone is an atheist because they worship a God who has no form or substance is wrong, although I can undestand why he or she would say or think such a thing. and that is because it's hard to tell the difference between a God with no form or substance and no God at all,

Edited September 22, 2011 by Ahab

[zerinus]

In recent posts on the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board, two Mormons have asserted that orthodox Christians, who believe that God is an immaterial being existing in three persons, are actually atheists:

<snip>

That would be like someone trawling through 2000 years of Christian history, picking a few isolated quotes here and there where some prominent individuals has taught some obscure doctrines, misrepresent them and blow them out of all proportion, and portray them as the official and authoritative teaching of the Christian faith. For example, I can find you quotes from prominent early Christian teachers, like Augustine and others, that teach that little children who die in infancy without baptism are damned. But if I were to quote them today as the current teachings of Christianity, there would be loud protests from Catholics and Protestants alike. I refer you to the following passage from the Church's official website:

.

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Link

.

I stand by what I said in the other thread:

I have been an active Mormon for many years, have travelled widely, been to many different Mormon churches and congregations, in more than one country, interacted with many Mormons, and I would say off the top of my head that 99% of the Mormons don't believe that non-LDS Christians are atheists. They are never taught to believe that. No one at General Conference has ever advocated it as far as I know. It has never been taught in any sacrament meeting sermon that I have ever heard, nor in any Gospel Doctrine or priesthood lesson that I have attended. If such a doctrine was ever taught, I am sure the great majority of Church members would object to it. Heck, the Church invited a Catholic bishop to preach a sermon at a BYU devotional not too long ago! So by your reckoning, how "common" is less than 1%?

That is still an entirely correct statement which I recommend you to accept. You quotes amounts to a deliberate misrepresentation of the LDS position.

[jo1952]

Well... Satan is an 'immaterial spirit' so you do worship something Rob.

(Sorry I had too)

Thats the distiction. LDS do not beleive that spirits are immaterial. God created them after all so they have to be something as opposed to nothing (ex nihilio and all).

PS. Thanks for all the good Quotes. I'll Stand with Brother Joseph.

Any comments on Tertullian?

I can't seem to get most Trinitarians to respond to Tertullian's writings either. At most I have heard claims that Tertullian's fledgling concept of the Trinity dogma was heretical. The first real stake placed in the ground about the Trinity boundaries of belief weren't set until the First Council of Nicea in 325 AD, whereas Tertullian was circa 200 AD. I don't remember reading about whether or not the Council made their vote retroactive against those who had already died; though their decision DID make instant heretics of many living leaders and general church members.

Regards,

jo

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

You missed the point of my statements although humorous they were not diversionary. They were meant to make a point. You claim to research Mormonism and know what we believe. I doubt from your essays and questions you have spent two minutes in a contemporary LDS class or Sacrament meeting. You have yet to observe Mormons in their "natural habitat" discussing things of importance to them.

As much as I enjoy the diversion of apologetics it is a far cry from the day to day worship and belief of Mormons.

Because of this I think many who research our literature, curricula and internet ramblings have a scewed view of our belief systems. You suffer from the same errors that early anthropologists suffered when trying to interpret the writings of ancient cultures. What makes this inexcusable is that you have the living, breathing Church and their contemporary teachings to access.

In stead you choose to take speculative teachings from outdates sources and present them as "what Mormons really believe".

Since I never said that I was discussing "what Mormons really believe," your entire rant is irrelevant to what I was actually saying.

I am confident that if I spent six months attending meetings in a local ward and reported what I observed and heard, people like you would take me to task for basing my comments on the anecdotal evidence of a small local group of Mormons instead of focusing on the official teachings of the LDS Church. In short, you'll find fault no matter what my source of information.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Of course not. You are just using it as a red herring to distract from the fact that your previous OP has been shredded.

This is just a slick move to distance yourself from that lost battle.

Not at all. I am responding to a CFR from that thread and to the accusation that I lied about this issue. Had I ignored those things, you would be accusing me of running away from this issue. In short, you would be finding fault no matter what I did.

I have every intention of responding to some of the other matters in that thread as time permits. So you are mistaken. Furthermore, I already said I would try to do so. You are therefore bearing false witness against me.

You wrote:

Case closed.

Of course if you can't distinguish between worshiping "something" that in concept cannot exist (or is an obvious abstraction)

and NOT worshiping at all, then you are in sad shape.

That comment misrepresents what I argued in the opening post. It ignores practically everything I said.

But hey, when you need a red herring, any red herring will do, right?

Another illustration of why even some of your fellow Mormons think I should ignore your posts.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

Tertullian was a brilliant man and made real contributions to Christian theology, but I am not a Tertullianite. I am not obliged to agree with him about everything.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

I, personally, I don't view CFR's and reasonable expressions of doubt as somehow making things into a big issue, Such things are mundane aspects of online debate.

You're ignoring the fact, as I pointed out to you, that some of your fellow Mormons accused me of lying about this issue.

You wrote:

However, in my view, mining a few philosophical quotes concerning a specific aspect of certain Christian's belief from the vast stores of Church material, reading things into some of what is quoted, and purporting it as the LDS historical view of traditional and orthodox Christianity, is to make a huge mountain out of a mole hill.

But, to each their own.

"Mining a few philosophical quotes" is a prejudicial and inaccurate description of what I did. Nor did I "read things into" what I quoted, in the pejorative sense you are implicitly meaning by it. Nor is your dismissive comment a serious refutation of the argument I presented.

[Rob Bowman]

Cobalt-70,

You wrote:

The idea that trinitarianism is a form of atheism sounds as absurd to me, a Mormon, as it does to you, Rob. But I think it is a rare Mormon, if any, that actually believes that trinitarians are atheist, despite what they might say. It's just an example of name-calling. It's like when evangelicals call Mormonism a cult.

When Mormons say that a trinitarianism is atheist, they don't really mean that in the literal sense. They just mean that they believe the Trinity is an ill-defined paradox. That's not atheism. Atheism is the belief that there is no God or gods, not the malformed belief that there is a God.

So, the Pratt brothers, Roberts, Talmage, and McConkie were all engaging in the kind of "name-calling" that Mormons constantly complain about? That long excerpt from Orson Pratt's pamphlet was not meant the way it sounded, as a serious criticism of orthodox Christianity, but just an exercise in name-calling? And the LDS Church published and reprinted for a century a book that engaged in this name-calling?

I think your way of finessing these statements creates more serious problems than the one you're trying to solve.

[Ahab]

Zakuska,

Tertullian was a brilliant man and made real contributions to Christian theology, but I am not a Tertullianite. I am not obliged to agree with him about everything.

Rob,

Orson Pratt was endowed with a lot of intelligence from our Father in heaven and made real contributions to our understanding of the things of God, but I am not a Prattite. I am not obliged to agree with him about everything.

And, yeah, you can substitute Bruce McConkie or some other apostle for Orson Pratt and the same principle would still apply. Even Presidents of the Church have been known to be wrong when sharing their personal opinions, but that's no cause for us to be concerned as long as we follow Jesus Christ as his disciples.

And, yeah, we can still advise people to "Follow the Prophet", too, because when a President of the Church speaks as a Prophet he is then by definition speaking for God as God's Prophet, and the key to keep in mind is that we are following God by following his prophet/Prophets.

[wenglund]

You're ignoring the fact, as I pointed out to you, that some of your fellow Mormons accused me of lying about this issue.

CFR--oops there I go making a big deal of things.

"Mining a few philosophical quotes" is a prejudicial and inaccurate description of what I did. Nor did I "read things into" what I quoted, in the pejorative sense you are implicitly meaning by it. Nor is your dismissive comment a serious refutation of the argument I presented.

Your dogmatic assertions to the contrary carry little weight with me, particularly since I have a reasonable difference of opinion than you, and I rationally tend to favor my own opinion over yours.

The sooner you figure out that dogmatism, while perhaps amenable to group-think, is ineffectual within inter-faith dialogue such as this, the better for one and all. I know that I have said this several times before. It is just that am just hoping at some point it will sinks in.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 22, 2011 by wenglund

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

Your analogy to someone picking a few isolated quotes from 2000 years of church history is extremely weak. In the case in point, I provided documentation of this idea from one year after Joseph Smith's death and moving forward for almost all of LDS Church history since then. I also documented that the criticism was published in the doctrinal curriculum textbook that dominated LDS doctrinal instruction for most of the twentieth century. The LDS Church, unlike all 2000 years of the history of Christianity, is a single, authoritarian organization that has existed for less than 200 years. Your analogy is worse than weak--it is simply a bad analogy.

Also, while I understand that not every statement made by every LDS Church leader is official doctrine, that completely ignores the actual evidence I presented that it was official LDS doctrine for at least most of the twentieth century. Furthermore, all I had claimed was that it was a common criticism of orthodox Christianity, not that it is today official LDS doctrine.

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

I never claimed that you or any Mormon today is obliged to accept the position taken by the Pratts, Roberts, Talmage, and McConkie. So your comments don't impinge on anything I said.

My comment about not being a Tertullianite was directed to Zakuska's request that I comment on Tertullian's belief that God has a body.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

I had pointed out that I had been accused of lying about it being fairly common for Mormons to describe orthodox Christians as atheists. You wrote:

CFR--oops there I go making a big deal of things.

Here you go:

http://www.mormondia...__p__1209047433

Edited September 22, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Grundelwalken]

I am a newbie and don't have much weight here but I do feel like I should respond to Rob's question.

My limited understanding is that Orthodox Christians believe God is immaterial and resides in the heart and/or in the expanse of all His creations. Latter-day Saints believe that God is a Man with an exalted body. While I do not believe the majority of Christians to be atheists, I do believe some of their teachings lead others to develop an incorrect knowledge/understanding of the true nature of God.

If one were to look at these teachings from an LDS viewpoint, there can be a case made that by teaching incorrect principles, the religions of the day would lead followers of God and Christ to chase after some non-existent God, thus leading them to be atheists (believing in a God that does not exist). In fact, isn't this the major claim most Evangelical Christians make when they say that LDS do not believe in Christ -- because they view the Christ we worship as different than their own perception. Again, I am not advocating that other Christians are atheists because I do not believe that, but I can surely see why some of the Brethren may have made this claim in their writings. And from that point of view, I believe they are correct. MW

[zerinus]

Your analogy to someone picking a few isolated quotes from 2000 years of church history is extremely weak. In the case in point, I provided documentation of this idea from one year after Joseph Smith's death and moving forward for almost all of LDS Church history since then. I also documented that the criticism was published in the doctrinal curriculum textbook that dominated LDS doctrinal instruction for most of the twentieth century.

You haven't. You quoted one or two references that actually said that (which was polemical and taken out of context); and for the rest of them you incorrectly inferred that doctrine, which was not explicitly stated.

The LDS Church, unlike all 2000 years of the history of Christianity, is a single, authoritarian organization that has existed for less than 200 years. Your analogy is worse than weak--it is simply a bad analogy.

Well, for your information, Orson Pratt had a lot of trouble with his contemporary Church leaders who did not approve of everything that he taught, starting from Brigham Young down. It appears that the LDS Church is not as "authoritarian" as you like to think or try to portray.

Also, while I understand that not every statement made by every LDS Church leader is official doctrine, that completely ignores the actual evidence I presented that it was official LDS doctrine for at least most of the twentieth century. Furthermore, all I had claimed was that it was a common criticism of orthodox Christianity, not that it is today official LDS doctrine.

It has never been "official" Church doctrine; and you have not demonstrated that it has.

Edited September 22, 2011 by zerinus

[Ahab]

Ahab,

I never claimed that you or any Mormon today is obliged to accept the position taken by the Pratts, Roberts, Talmage, and McConkie. So your comments don't impinge on anything I said.

My comment about not being a Tertullianite was directed to Zakuska's request that I comment on Tertullian's belief that God has a body.

I stated a principle which you can apply to anything said by anyone other than Jesus Christ, hoping you would keep it in mind.

Hopefully your appeals to what other people have said will now stop or at least diminish when trying to apply their opinions as our opinions, with the only question in your mind being how we know when someone is speaking as a prophet/Prophet of God.

[wenglund]

Wade,

I had pointed out that I had been accused of lying about it being fairly common for Mormons to describe orthodox Christians as atheists.

Here you go:

http://www.mormondia...__p__1209047433

http://www.mormondia...__p__1209047549

I saw that you were accused of misrepresenting a quote and taking a pedantic approach, and I saw expressions of difference of perspective and doubt as to the accuracy of your claim, but I failed to see any accusations that you lied.

Seems to me, you are making more of those two post than what is actually in them, and then using that inflated perception to make an even bigger deal of things on this thread. Your quite the excitable guy, with an apparent penchant to magnify things well out of proportion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I saw that you were accused of misrepresenting a quote and taking a pedantic approach, and I saw expressions of difference of perspective and doubt as to the accuracy of your claim, but I failed to see any accusations that you lied.

Seems to me, you are making more of those two post than what is actually in them, and then using that inflated perception to make an even bigger deal of things on this thread. Your quite the excitable guy, with an apparent penchant to magnify things well out of proportion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oops...I read a little further on the second post to where your claim is considered a lie and where it is said that you know it is a lie. So, at least in one instance someone evidently implied you were lying. I stand corrected on this minor point.

By the way, I don't believe you are lying, though I believe your perspective on the matter is self-servingly distorted.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 22, 2011 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

So, the Pratt brothers, Roberts, Talmage, and McConkie were all engaging in the kind of "name-calling" that Mormons constantly complain about? That long excerpt from Orson Pratt's pamphlet was not meant the way it sounded, as a serious criticism of orthodox Christianity, but just an exercise in name-calling? And the LDS Church published and reprinted for a century a book that engaged in this name-calling?

You have to look at what they are saying. They are using a nonstandard definition of atheism. Their writings reveal that they don't actually believe that trinitarians are atheists (in an academic sense as we are discussing the issue today). For example, Orson Pratt had to invent a whole new category of "atheism" to make his point, a category with no basis in standard theology. But this category of "atheism" is actually not atheism by any normal definition of the word.

This is a language game, as is most polemical writing. If you can somehow tag a group with the word "atheist," or "cult," using whatever manipulations of language you can enlist to your cause, you have supposedly discredited them.

[mapman]

If Mormons had to believe everything Orson Pratt wrote then we'd be a completely different church.

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

You wrote:

Hopefully your appeals to what other people have said will now stop or at least diminish when trying to apply their opinions as our opinions....

You've got to be KIDDING!

You can't seriously think I was claiming that their opinions were your opinions. That just isn't close to a plausible understanding of what I said. In fact, it's not even plausible as an innocent misunderstanding of what I said, particularly after I stated to you directly that I accepted the fact that you held a different view.

What in the world?!

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote (emphasis added):

Oops...I read a little further on the second post to where your claim is considered a lie and where it is said that you know it is a lie. So, at least in one instance someone evidently implied you were lying. I stand corrected on this minor point.

Bravely spoken.

Let's see, someone says that I know I lied and that he knows I lied, and the best you can do is say that "evidently" (as if there is still some room for doubt) he "implied" (rather than saying explicitly) that I lied?

I am flabbergasted at the contortions that you and everyone else are employing to dance around the facts here.

As for the fact that I was falsely accused of lying being "a minor point," I agree, with regard to my personal honor being of relative unimportance. However, what should be of importance to Mormons of integrity is the exhibition of mass stubbornness so far on the part of the Mormon participants in these threads. Apparently it's too much to ask that even one Mormon forthrightly state that I was right about what I said and that Storm Rider falsely and wrongly accused me of lying.

You wrote:

By the way, I don't believe you are lying, though I believe your perspective on the matter is self-servingly distorted.

You have given no plausible or factual reason to think so.

[Rob Bowman]

mapman,

You wrote:

If Mormons had to believe everything Orson Pratt wrote then we'd be a completely different church.

True, but irrelevant to my argument.

Also, I can't resist suggesting to you that if Mormons had to believe (and practice) everything Joseph Smith wrote then you'd also be a very different religion from what you are today.

[Rob Bowman]

Cobalt,

You wrote:

You have to look at what they are saying. They are using a nonstandard definition of atheism. Their writings reveal that they don't actually believe that trinitarians are atheists (in an academic sense as we are discussing the issue today). For example, Orson Pratt had to invent a whole new category of "atheism" to make his point, a category with no basis in standard theology. But this category of "atheism" is actually not atheism by any normal definition of the word.

This is a language game, as is most polemical writing. If you can somehow tag a group with the word "atheist," or "cult," using whatever manipulations of language you can enlist to your cause, you have supposedly discredited them.

You make a reasonable point, but unfortunately it reflects very poorly not just on Orson Pratt but on the LDS Church itself, because they enshrined his "manipulations of language" in the dominant official doctrinal curriculum manual of the LDS religion for most of the twentieth century (Talmage's Articles of Faith).

Remember, my claim was not that this accusation used the term atheists in an academically standard way; my claim was merely that it has been fairly common for Mormons to call orthodox Christians "atheists." The fact that their doing so was a misuse of the term only makes it worse, doesn't it?

[Pahoran]

Also, I can't resist suggesting to you that if Mormons had to believe (and practice) everything Joseph Smith wrote then you'd also be a very different religion from what you are today.

Of course you can't resist it.

On the topic of this thread, here is a truthful statement, of a kind that will never, ever, at any point, ever, appear on the pages of IRR:

"Beginning with Parley P. Pratt, a number of influential early Latter-day Saint thinkers extrapolated Joseph Smith's dictum to the point of arguing that orthodox immaterialism is tantamount to atheism. In the cut and thrust of online debate, some modern Latter-day Saints have repeated this argument.

"More level-headed LDS commentators have admitted that this argument is no more valid than the popular canard that Mormons worship 'another Jesus'. This is in sharp contrast to some modern Evangelical polemicists, who would rather sell their firstborn for medical experiments than admit that their favorite line of attack is without merit."

Feel free to use that statement, as long as you do so in its entirety. To make it easier for you, I even made sure I used American spelling.

Regards,

Pahoran