Orthodox Christians Are Atheists

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You wrote the following; I have inserted numbers to mark points on which I will comment:

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 {1} early Latter-day Saint {2} 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.

"{3} More level-headed LDS {4} 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.

Your proposed statement is highly misleading.

{1} The criticism that orthodox Christians are atheists is not limited to "early" LDS figures, but is found explicitly expressed by important figures as recently as the 1960s (i.e., the last third of LDS Church history so far) by Bruce McConkie.

{2} The LDS figures I cited were not merely "thinkers"; they were LDS apostles. Furthermore, your statement ignores the fact that this criticism was presented in a doctrinal curriculum textbook commissioned and published (for about a century) by the LDS Church.

{3} Have fun trying to defend the claim that Roberts and Talmage were anything less than two of the most "level-headed" Mormon leaders the LDS Church has ever had.

{4} By "commentators" you mean online Mormon apologists who don't use their real names ("altersteve," "Ahab," "DaddyG," "mapman," "zerinus," "Grundelwalken," and "Pahoran"), who evidently have no standing in the LDS Church as apostles or even academic theologians, and who are distancing themselves from the supposedly less level-headed Pratts, Roberts, Talmage, and McConkie "in the cut and thrust of online debate." The only Mormon in this thread so far who has the guts to use his own name is Wade, so I'll give you that one; but again, Wade is no apostle.

[Cobalt-70]

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?

I don't defend the practice. I think calling trinitarians "atheist" cheapens the discourse and shows lack of respect. Half of the animosity between certain Mormons and certain evangelicals is the fact that they think they understand each other, but what they really understand is a caricature of the other's beliefs. The other half of the animosity is disagreement about the "truest" meaning of words, as if God were the author of the English language.

[Zakuska]

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.

The same could be said for any Bible beleiving church orignization. Lets face it... do any of us keep our women hog tied at church like Paul commanded?

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

Pahoran,

<snip>

{2} The LDS figures I cited were not merely "thinkers"; they were LDS apostles. Furthermore, your statement ignores the fact that this criticism was presented in a doctrinal curriculum textbook commissioned and published (for about a century) by the LDS Church.

Here's another False Evangelical Canard that gets under my skin...

As if the Title Apostle some how made one super human, unable to sin, or infallible. Why do Evangelicals seem to forget that Apostles are people too.

They some how forget Pauls spat with Peter, "I resisted Peter to the face because he was to be blamed".

Can a true Apostle champion a position or Policy thats not quite right and still be a true Apostle? Sure Peter and Barnabus and many others did.

This Canard seems to come out every time people start Criticizing Josep Smith or BY or other LDS leaders so LDS bring up something Martin Luther, John Welsey or many others said or did, and even the Apostles in the Bible. And all Evangelicals can retort with is "well <insert name of Christian leader hear> never claimed to be a prophet/apostle".

If they never claimed it why are they even preaching Gods word!

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

First, I hope you're being facetious; second, of course Paul commanded no such thing; and third, what little Paul said about women's decorum in congregational worship is of superficial significance with regard to Paul's religion.

The same could be said for any Bible beleiving church orignization. Lets face it... do any of us keep our women hog tied at church like Paul commanded?

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Here's another False Evangelical Canard that gets under my skin...

As if the Title Apostle some how made one super human, unable to sin, or infallible. Why do Evangelicals seem to forget that Apostles are people too.

Um...what does this have to do with anything I said?

I understand that LDS apostles are not infallible, but are they not more authoritative and representative of the LDS Church than unknown Mormons on online forums with pseudonyms like Zakuska and Pahoran?

And wasn't I simply establishing that those men's criticisms of orthodox Christianity were fairly common and had significant influence in LDS thinking, not that what they said was regarded as infallible or even binding on Mormons today?

When will someone actually address the argument I present instead of knocking down straw men of their own creation?

[wenglund]

Wade,

You wrote (emphasis added):

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.

Oh, the drama. I wish I had a dollar for every time I or members and leaders of my faith have been accused of lying and far worse things, then I might have enough money to buy a truckload of cry towels to hand out to critics who take themselves and others way too seriously.

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

Since we are talking about matters of opinion, plausibility is in the eye of the beholder and "factual reasons" are a function of personal interpretation. Some day, if your dogmatism is ever abated, you may finally understand this. But, for now, I will suffer long, though not seriously, your emphatic bluster.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vance]

Rob, per your own tactic which you used with me:

A simple yes or no will suffice:

If you are worshipping something which consists of nothing, do you not worship nothing?

And if what you worship is in fact nothing, is that not by definition atheism?

Rob, The shoe is on the other foot. Fun, huh?

Edit: For the record, I do not believe that my misguided Christian syblings are atheists, not even Rob

I have noticed that Bowman is very careful to avoid answering your questions.

He has responded to nearly everyone else but not you. I wonder why?

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

You wrote the following; I have inserted numbers to mark points on which I will comment:

Your proposed statement is highly misleading.

That's an unusal way to spell "completely true," but I suppose that just goes to show. What, I'm not sure, but I'm sure it shows something.

{1} The criticism that orthodox Christians are atheists is not limited to "early" LDS figures, but is found explicitly expressed by important figures as recently as the 1960s (i.e., the last third of LDS Church history so far) by Bruce McConkie.

Yes, Elder Pratt's polemic against our attackers was, as I said, "influential."

{2} The LDS figures I cited were not merely "thinkers"; they were LDS apostles.

B. H. Roberts was an apostle? Who knew?

"Highly misleading" indeed!

But then again, we know that it is SOP in certain quarters to overinflate the credentials of LDS figures for polemical purposes; how many of your co-religionists describe the first (1958) or the second (1966) edition of Mormon Doctrine as having been written by a "Mormon apostle" who would not become an apostle until 1972!!!?

Is anything more important to you than maximising the polemical utility you can squeeze out of this old chestnut, Rob?

Furthermore, your statement ignores the fact that this criticism was presented in a doctrinal curriculum textbook commissioned and published (for about a century) by the LDS Church.

Yes, and Nibley's An Approach to the Book of Mormon was used as a "doctrinal curriculum textbook commissioned and published by the LDS Church" in the pre-correlation days too, but that doesn't stop your clique trying to demand that the hemispheric model was nothing less than the Church's accepted doctrine at that time, does it?

{3} Have fun trying to defend the claim that Roberts and Talmage were anything less than two of the most "level-headed" Mormon leaders the LDS Church has ever had.

As I'm sure you realise quite well, Rob, the level-headed commentators I referenced were in contrast to fringe figures like John W. Redelfs, whom no honest critic of the Church -- if such there be -- would quote as any kind of authority on anything.

The fact is that apart from Redelfs, the most recent such statement you've been able to find came nearly half a century ago. We recognise that the time for such rhetoric has passed, which makes us considerably more level-headed than Redelfs, not to mention our critics. I have no doubt that, were Elders Pratt, Pratt, Talmage, Roberts, Iverson and McConkie alive today, they would recognise the same thing.

So what will it take for you to do so?

{4} By "commentators" you mean online Mormon apologists who don't use their real names ("altersteve," "Ahab," "DaddyG," "mapman," "zerinus," "Grundelwalken," and "Pahoran"), who evidently have no standing in the LDS Church as apostles or even academic theologians, and who are distancing themselves from the supposedly less level-headed Pratts, Roberts, Talmage, and McConkie "in the cut and thrust of online debate." The only Mormon in this thread so far who has the guts to use his own name is Wade, so I'll give you that one; but again, Wade is no apostle.

Thank you for that ridiculous and irrelevant ad hominem, ending as it did with your sly insinuation of cowardice. I could point out that there are still anti-Mormons who have the guts to admit that they think Latter-day Saints worship "another Jesus" too, even though you don't appear to be one of them.

The fact remains, however, that such a comparison is non-symmetrical. The point you are missing (or avoiding) is that, despite the temptation, in the cut and thrust of online debate, to give back as good as we get -- which is all that argument really represents -- you have been unable to find any LDS statement in support thereof more recently than 45 years ago. The LDS participants in this thread, whether anonymous or not, are (AFAICT) unanimous in rejecting the argument on factual grounds.

The "immaterialists are atheists" argument is not now, and never has been, a tenet of LDS doctrine. It always was nothing more or less than a polemical point, a drop goal scored in the heat of the game because our opponents had manouevred into that portion of the field.

So I take it that I shouldn't expect my proposed statement to show up on the IRR website any time soon?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

I have noticed that Bowman is very careful to avoid answering your questions. He has responded to nearly everyone else but not you. I wonder why?

Oh, I've answered nearly everyone else but him because while they're pushovers, his questions are just too doggone hard for me. He's got me stumped, and I was just desperately hoping no one would notice.

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

I suppose it would have been ideal if I had been more precise about the positions of the various men I cited. You are correct that Roberts was not an apostle and that McConkie became an apostle after his Mormon Doctrine was published. Neither of these facts in any way diminishes the significance of these two men as teachers in the LDS religion. The fact that McConkie was named an apostle after Mormon Doctrine was published demonstrates that the book did not derail his rise in the religious establishment. And Roberts held about as high a position as one could hold and not be an apostle. To accuse me of deliberately inflating their status in the LDS Church for polemical purposes is ridiculous.

I would remind you that all I sought to do in this thread was to establish that I was not lying, as Storm Rider had claimed, when I said that it is fairly common for Mormons to describe orthodox Christians as atheists. I don't need to establish that it was ever official LDS teaching, although a decent case can be made that it was, much less that it is now. I don't need to establish that a majority of Mormons would agree with it now. I don't need to establish the intellectual credentials of those Mormons today who express that viewpoint. All I claimed was that it was fairly common--not that it was official, not that it was the majority view, not that the smartest or nicest Mormons agreed with it.

Perhaps we should fire off an email to Kerry Shirts to let him know that you consider him to be not so very level-headed. After all, he endorsed the criticism.

[Zakuska]

Pahoran,

I suppose it would have been ideal if I had been more precise about the positions of the various men I cited. You are correct that Roberts was not an apostle and that McConkie became an apostle after his Mormon Doctrine was published. Neither of these facts in any way diminishes the significance of these two men as teachers in the LDS religion. The fact that McConkie was named an apostle after Mormon Doctrine was published demonstrates that the book did not derail his rise in the religious establishment. And Roberts held about as high a position as one could hold and not be an apostle. To accuse me of deliberately inflating their status in the LDS Church for polemical purposes is ridiculous.

Perhaps we should fire off an email to Kerry Shirts to let him know that you consider him to be not so very level-headed. After all, he endorsed the criticism.

Ah yes but you do know the contraversial history behind the book "Momon Doctrine" don't you?

BACKGROUND

Faithful Mormons often cite Bruce R. McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” as an authoritative volume on official LDS doctrine.

However, its initial publication in 1959 was not only unauthorized, but met by President David O. McKay and other General Authorities with both surprise and objection.

In the wake of its appearance, McKay directed that a review be made of the book’s contents and a report submitted to him, along with recommendations on how to deal with it problematic publication.

An analysis of the book was subsequently conducted by Apostles Marion G. Romney and Mark E. Petersen, wherein they noted the book’s numerous doctrinal errors, objectionable language, discourteous tone and questionable claims.

Recommendation was made that McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” not be republished, that it be repudiated, and that in the future no book be published by any of the Brethren without first obtaining First Presidency approval.

McKay agreed with the suggestion that “Mormon Doctrine” not be republished and directed that restrictions be placed on future book publishing by General Authorities.

The First Presidency also issued a private, face-to-face reprimand to McConkie, whereupon McConkie promised to behave.

Below are documents which include McKay’s officially-directed report on the book’s contents (authored by Apostle Romney), as well as excerpts from McKay’s contemporary office journal on the controversy surrounding the book and the resolution of the problems its publication had created.

(These documents were originally copied with permission of the LDS Church Archivist. Reproductions of those copies are in my possession. The original Romney letter and its attached copy of the “Mormon Doctrine” manuscript are in the First Presidency’s Office).

Also noted below are letters authorized by McKay which were sent out to inquiring Church members after publication of McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine," declaring that it and other books published by individual General Authorities did not represent the official position of the LDS Church.

(Copies of these letters are also in my possession).

_____

REPORT FROM MARION G. ROMNEY TO DAVID O. McKAY

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The Council of the Twelve

47 E. South Temple

Salt Lake City, Utah

January 28, 1959

President David O. McKay

Building

Dear President McKay:

This is my report on MORMON DOCTRINE, by Bruce R. McConkie, which on January 5, you asked me to read.

The book is a 776 page work which, in the words of the author, purports to be, ‘the first major attempt to digest, explain, and analyze all of the important doctrines of the kingdom . . . . . the first extensive compendium of the whole gospel—the first attempt to publish an encyclopedic commentary covering the whole field of revealed religion.’

‘For the work itself,’ the author assumes the ‘sole and full responsibility.’ (Exhibit I) (The exhibits cited in this report consist of printed pages from the book. The statements in point are underscored in red.)

Preparation of the volume has entailed much study and research. Its favorable reception evidences a felt need for such a treatise.

The author is an able and thorough student of the gospel. In many respects he has produced a remarkable book. Properly used, it quickly introduces the student to the authorities on most any gospel subject.

As to the book itself, notwithstanding its many commendable and valuable features and the author’s assumption of ‘sole and full responsibility’ for it, its nature and scope and the authoritative tone of the style in which it is written pose the question as to the propriety of the author’s attempting such a project without assignment and supervision from him whose right and responsibility it is to speak for the Church on ‘Mormon Doctrine.’ Had the work been authoritatively supervised, some of the following matters might have been omitted and the treatment of others modified.

A. Reference to churches and other groups who do not accept ‘Mormon Doctrine’.

1. ‘Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,’ who sometimes refer to themselves as ‘Josephites’. (Exhibit II-1, pages 50, 141, 362)

2. ‘Christian Churches’ generally. (Exhibit II-2, pages 139, 455)

3. ‘Catholic Church’. (Exhibit II-3, pages 13, 66, 69, 129, 130, 216, 241, 314-15, 342, 346, 350, 422, 499, 511, 697)

4. Communists and Catholics. (Exhibit II-4, pages 26-7, 131)

5. Evolution and Evolutionists. (Exhibit II-5, pages 37, 77, 136, 180, 228, 238, 659)

B. Declaration as to ‘Mormon Doctrine’ on controversial issues.

1. ‘Pre-Adamites’. (Exhibit III-1, pages 17, 262)

2. Status of Animals and Plants in the Garden of Eden. (Exhibit III-2, pages 36, 234-35)

3. Meaning of the various accounts of Creation. (exhibit III_3, pages 157-8, 167-

4. Dispensation of Abraham. (Exhibit III-4, page 203)

5. Moses a translated being. (Exhibit III_5, pages 206, 445, 466, 727-

6. Origin of Individuality. (Exhibit III-6, page 404)

7. Defiling the priesthood. (Exhibit III-7, page 437)

8. Manner in which Jesus was Begotten. (Exhibit III-8, page 494)

9. Written sermons. (Exhibit III-9, pages 634-5, 716)

10. Resurrection of stillborn children. (Exhibit III-10, page 694)

C. Miscellaneous Interpretations (Exhibit IV)

Frequency of Administrations, page 22

Baptism in the ‘molten sea,’ page 98

II Peter 1:19, page 102

Paul married, page 112

Status of those ‘with Christ in His Resurrection', page 128

Consecration of oil, page 147

Councils and schools among the Gods, page 151

Limitations on Deity, page 154

Sunday not a proper day for family reunions, page 254

Geological changes at time of the deluge, page 268

The Holy Ghost a spirit man, page 329

Facing east in temples when giving the Hosanna Shout, page 337

Details on family prayer and asking the blessing on food, page 526

Women to be gods, page 551

Interpretations of the Doctrine and Covenants 93:1, page 581

Interpretation of “Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning,” page 606

Status of little children in the celestial kingdom, page 607

Resumption of schools of the prophets, page 613

Time of beginning of seasons, page 616

Interpretation of III Nephi 12:20, page 618

D. Repeated use of the word ‘apostate’ and related terms in a way which to many seems discourteous and to others gives offense. (Exhibit V, pages 123, 125, 160, 169, 212, 223, 383, 538, 546, 548, 596)

Faithfully and Respectfully submitted,

[signed]

Marion G. Romney

Enc.

P. S.

As per my letter to you of January 9, I have promised to contact Marvin Wallin, manager of Bookcraft Company, by the 9th of February about the 4,000 volume edition of MORMON DOCTRINE which he is holding.

I shall therefore seek to contact you about the matter near the end of next week.

Sincerely,

M. G. R.”

_____

OFFICE JOURNAL OF PRESIDENT DAVID O. McKAY

“THURSDAY, January 7, 1960

10:15 to 12:45 p.m. Re: The book—‘Mormon Doctrine’

The First Presidency met with Elders Mark E. Petersen and Marion G. Romney. They submitted their report upon their examination of the book ‘Mormon Doctrine’ by Elder Bruce McConkie.

These brethren reported that the manuscript of the book ‘Mormon Doctrine’ has not been read by the reading committee; that President Joseph Fielding Smith did not know anything about it until it was published. Elder Petersen stated that the extent of the corrections which he had marked in his copy of the book (1067) affected most of the 776 pages of the book. He also said that he thought the brethren should be under the rule that no book should be published without a specific approval of the First Presidency.

I stated that the decision of the First Presidency and the Committee should be announced to the Twelve.

It was agreed that the necessary corrections are so numerous that to republish a corrected edition of the book would be such an extensive repudiation of the original as to destroy the credit of the author; that the republication of the book should be forbidden and that the book should be repudiated in such a way as to save the career of the author as one of the General Authorities of the Church. It was also agreed that this decision should be announced to the Council of the Twelve before I talk to the author.

Elder Petersen will prepare an editorial for publication in the Improvement Era, stating the principle of approval of books on Church doctrine.”

“FRIDAY, January 8, 1960

11:55 to 12:15 p.m.

The First Presidency held a meeting. We decided that Bruce R. McConkie’s book, ‘Mormon Doctrine’ recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that it has receive such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made corrections to his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning that we do not want him to publish another edition.

We decided, also, to have no more books published by General Authorities without their first having the consent of the First Presidency. (see January 7, 1960)”

“WEDNESDAY, January 27, 1960

3:00 P. M. Conference with Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith re: Bruce R. McConkie’s book, ‘Mormon Doctrine’

At the request of the First Presidency, I called President Joseph Fielding Smith and told him that we are a unit in disapproving of Brother Bruce R. McConkie’s book, ‘Mormon Doctrine,’ as an authoritative exposition of the principles of the gospel.

I then said: ‘Now, Brother Smith, he is a General Authority, and we do not want to give him a public rebuke that would be embarrassing to him and lessen his influence with the members of the Church, so we shall speak to the Twelve at our meeting in the Temple tomorrow, and tell them that Brother McConkie’s book is not approved as an authoritative book and that it should not be republished, even if the errors (some 1,067) are corrected.’

“Brother Smith agreed with this suggestion to report to the Twelve, and said, ‘That is the best thing to do.’

I then said that Brother McConkie is advocating by letter some of the [one line of words partially cut off on bottom of the photocopied page of journal] . . . to letters he receives. Brother Smith said, ‘I will speak to him about that.’ I then mentioned that he is also speaking on these subjects, and Brother Smith said, ‘I will speak to him about that also.’

I also said that the First Presidency had decided that General Authorities of the Church should not publish books without submitting them to some member of the General Authorities, and President Smith agreed to this as being wise.”

“THURSDAY, January 28, 1960

8:30 to 9 a.m. Bruce R. McConkie’s Book

Was engaged in the meeting of the First Presidency. I reported to my counselors that I had talked with President Joseph Fielding Smith about the decision that the book ‘Mormon Doctrine’ should not be republished and about handling the matter to avoid undermining Brother McConkie’s influence. President Smith agreed that the book should not be republished, and said he would talk with Brother McConkie. It was decided that the First Presidency should inform Brother McConkie before he learns of our decision from some other source, so Brother McConkie was asked to come into our meeting this morning.

When he arrived I informed him of the desire of the First Presidency with reference to h is book not being republished, to which he agreed. The recommendation was also made that he answer inquiries on the subject with care. Brother McConkie said, ‘I am amenable to whatever you Brethren want. I will do exactly what you want. I will be as discreet and as wise as I can.’ In answering letters he said that he would express no views contrary to views which the First Presidency has expressed. He said that he would conform in every respect. . . .

10 a.m. to 2:45 p.m.

Was engaged in the meeting of the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve in the Salt Lake Temple.

At Council meeting I reported to the Brethren our decision regarding Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s book ‘Mormon Doctrine,’ stating that it had caused considerable comment throughout the Church, and that it has been a source of concern to the Brethren ever since it was published. I said that this book had not been presented to anyone for consideration or approval until after its publication. I further said that the First Presidency have [sic] give it very careful consideration, as undoubtedly have some of the Brethren of the Twelve also, and that the First Presidency now recommend that the book be not republished; that it be not republished even in a corrected form, even though Brother McConkie mentions in the book that he takes all responsibility for it; and that it not be recognized as an authoritative book.

I said further that the question has arisen as to whether a public correction should be made and a addendum given emphasizing the [bottom line of photocopied page of journal cut off] . . . it is felt that that would not be wise because Brother McConkie is one of the General Authorities, and it might lessen his influence. The First Presidency recommend that the situation be left as it is, and whenever a question about it arises, we can answer that it is unauthoritative; that it was issued by Brother McConkie on his own responsibility, and he must answer for it.

I reported that the First Presidency had talked to Brother McConkie this morning, and he said he will do whatever the Brethren want him to do. He will not attempt to republish the book nor to say anything by letter, and if he answers letters or inquiries that he will answer them in accordance with the suggestions made by the Brethren, and not advocate those things concerning which question had been raised as contained in the book.

The Brethren unanimously approved of this.

I then said that the First Presidency further recommend that when any member of the General Authorities desires to write a book, that the Brethren of the Twelve or the First Presidency be consulted regarding it. While the author need not get the approval of these Brethren, they should know before it is published that a member of the General Authorities wants to publish a book. I said it may seem all right for the writer of the book to say, ‘I only am responsible for it,’ but I said ‘you cannot separate your position from your individuality, and we should like the authors to present their books to the Twelve or a Committee appointed.’ I asked the Brethren of the Twelve to convey this information to the other General Authorities. On motion, this became the consensus of the Council.”

_____

LETTERS FROM McKAY TO CHURCH MEMBERS REGARDING McCONKIE’S “MORMON DOCTRINE” AND OTHER BOOKS PUBLISHED BY INDIVIDUAL GENERAL AUTHORITIES

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

47 E. South Temple Street

Salt Lake City, Utah

David O. McKay, President

February 3, 1959

Dr. A. Kent Christensen

Department of Anatomy

Cornell University Medical College

1300 York Avenue

New York 21, New York

Dear Brother Christensen:

I have your letter of January 23, 1959 in which you ask for a statement of the Church’s position on the subject of evolution.

The Church has issued not official statement on the subject of the theory of evolution.

Neither ‘Man, His Origin and Destiny’ by Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, nor ‘Mormon Doctrine’ by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, is an official publication of the Church. . . .

Sincerely yours,

[signed]

David O. McKay

(President)”

___

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

47 East South Temple Street

Salt Lake City, Utah

David O. McKay

September 24, 1964

Dr. Lorenzo Lisonbee, Science Consultant

Phoenix Union High School System

District Adminstration Annex

2042 West Thomas Road

Phoenix, Arizona (85015)

Dear Dr. Lisonbee :

President McKay, who is recuperating at home under doctors’s orders from his recent illness, has asked me to acknowledge for him your letter of September 8, 1964.

I have been directed to say that individual General Authorities of the Church publish books on their own responsibility, the publishing of which is not regarded as Church approval of the books. The Church approves only books which have been authorized for publication by the General Authorities of the Church, such as the Standard Works of the Church and authorized textbooks adopted by official action of the Church for the Priesthood and the organizations fo the Church.

Sincerely yours,

[signed]

Clare Middlemiss

Secretary to:

President David O. McKay”

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[ebeddoulos]

I have noticed that Bowman is very careful to avoid answering your questions.

He has responded to nearly everyone else but not you. I wonder why?

Rob answered the questions and provided a sufficient answer but in response to others. He was smart enough to know not to answer my questions directly because that would obligate him to answer my follow-on questions. He has learned. I suspect he shall seldom respond to me in the future except obliquely. I must give him credit. He knows his limitations.

I do find it amusing that Rob takes umbrage when someone implies that he is less than honest, yet he had no reservation in impugning my integrity until I made an issue of it where upon he promptly apologized. For what it is worth, it is my personal opinion that someone owes Rob apology as well.

Edited September 23, 2011 by ebeddoulos

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Ah yes but you do know the contraversial history behind the book "Momon Doctrine" don't you?

Yes, but in this case he was simply repeating what the Pratts, Roberts, Talmage, and others before him had said, so there is no reason to think that his statement on this issue was controversial among the LDS leadership.

[jo1952]

This Canard seems to come out every time people start Criticizing Josep Smith or BY or other LDS leaders so LDS bring up something Martin Luther, John Welsey or many others said or did, and even the Apostles in the Bible. And all Evangelicals can retort with is "well <insert name of Christian leader hear> never claimed to be a prophet/apostle".

If they never claimed it why are they even preaching Gods word!

I have observed that many Evangelicals give weight to the preaching of God's word by <insert name of Christian leader here> as though they WERE a prophet/apostle.

Your comments have reminded me of the standard Canard wherein we are accused of not actually receiving a personal witness from the Holy Ghost if they don't receive the same witness. However, the NT teaches us (such as in the example you provided about the spat between Peter and Paul) that the Holy Ghost did NOT reveal the same message to all of the Apostles. For instance, when Peter received the vision about eating with the Gentiles, the apostles and disciples who were with Peter on that particular mission were astonished to learn that God wanted the Gospel preached to the Gentiles as well. Up to that point, the Jews thought that God was exclusively theirs. Later, when Peter and his group returned to Jerusalem, a meeting was held with the rest of the Apostles who had no idea what had taken place. There was even a discussion before they would all accept what Peter had to say. This indicates to me that the Holy Ghost does not reveal the exact same message to every individual, or at the same time. Other than witnessing to a person that Jesus is the Christ, each individual is taught and guided on a personal basis when God is ready to have the Holy Ghost do so. Whenever I try to point this out, my comments are glossed over and no clear explanation is ever given by those I have presented this to.

Regards,

jo

[Zakuska]

I have observed that many Evangelicals give weight to the preaching of God's word by <insert name of Christian leader here> as though they WERE a prophet/apostle.

Your comments have reminded me of the standard Canard wherein we are accused of not actually receiving a personal witness from the Holy Ghost if they don't receive the same witness. However, the NT teaches us (such as in the example you provided about the spat between Peter and Paul) that the Holy Ghost did NOT reveal the same message to all of the Apostles. For instance, when Peter received the vision about eating with the Gentiles, the apostles and disciples who were with Peter on that particular mission were astonished to learn that God wanted the Gospel preached to the Gentiles as well. Up to that point, the Jews thought that God was exclusively theirs. Later, when Peter and his group returned to Jerusalem, a meeting was held with the rest of the Apostles who had no idea what had taken place. There was even a discussion before they would all accept what Peter had to say. This indicates to me that the Holy Ghost does not reveal the exact same message to every individual, or at the same time. Other than witnessing to a person that Jesus is the Christ, each individual is taught and guided on a personal basis when God is ready to have the Holy Ghost do so. Whenever I try to point this out, my comments are glossed over and no clear explanation is ever given by those I have presented this to.

Regards,

jo

Which reminds me of all the confussion and doubting Thomas' at the time of the ressurection itself. Each individual had to be witnessed to of the ressurection on an indivdual and customized basis.

[zerinus]

I am, however, personally offended by obviously intelligent, educated Mormons with decades in the LDS religion--individuals who should already have known that what I said was true--who accuse me of lying about the traditional Mormon criticism of orthodox Christian theology. You didn't do this, but others did--and there's no excuse for it.

Who accused you of lying, and where?

[elguanteloko]

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:

“The more I think about it, the more I come to realize that trinitarians are closet atheists because God doesn't exist in any real way for them. It's just an abstraction.” BCSpace, Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board, 5 Aug. 2011.

“An ‘immaterial’ non-existant God who doesn’t have a body is the very definition of Athieism.” Zakuska, Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board, 22 Sept. 2011.

Are these opinions isolated to a couple of extremists, or are they representative of a significant tradition of Mormon criticism of orthodox Christianity? The latter is in fact the case.

Those are horrible criticisms indeed, Rob. I'm really sorry these guys made those statements. I'm on your side on this one.

So, let's take a look at the criticisms:

1. "For Trinitarians, God doesn't exist in any real way."

This isn't true and it is incredibly ignorant. After all, the trinity is something: "Three persons.." is something.

2. "God is an abstraction."

Wrong. God is not an abstraction although we use abstractions and analogies to speak about him. Example: I have just about no substantive understanding of neutrinos but that doesn't mean neutrinos are 'concepts' just because all I have is a concept of it. My concept may not refer to something that actually exist, but that wouldn't mean my idea of God is that of a concept.

3. " 'Immaterial' means implies that God doesn't exist."

....I am astonished that someone can make this claim seriously. Tons of things don't have matter. Examples include concepts (which, btw, contradicts saying God is merely a concept), energy, force, mass, universals, logic, mathematics, etc.

BTW, I would love to hear Mormons say what they think God's priesthood power is since it must be made up of matter since this follows from this ridiculous claim that what is not material doesn't exist. When God moves a thing, is he physically touching it? What is his power if not matter?

4. "An immaterial non-existent God can't exist."

....Right, from the very definition you used of 'non-existence' it implies God doesn't exist... duh. Orthodox Christians, however, don't define God as "non-existence" so using this definition is a misrepresentation.

Edited September 23, 2011 by elguanteloko

[Rob Bowman]

jo,

You wrote:

I have observed that many Evangelicals give weight to the preaching of God's word by <insert name of Christian leader here> as though they WERE a prophet/apostle.

This sounds like a damaging observation. If only it were supported by some solid evidence.

Most people have their "favorite" preachers, teachers, professors, motivational speakers, philosophers, theologians, economists, or what have you, depending on their interests, perspectives, and so forth. It is not uncommon for evangelicals to have certain Christian leaders or theologians whose teaching is especially influential in their thinking and lives, be it a figure of the past such as Luther, Calvin, Wesley, or Spurgeon, or a living Christian teacher such as John MacArthur, Max Lucado, Charles Stanley, or Rick Warren. However, evangelicals definitely do not think of these individuals as anything like apostles or prophets, and of course these men would all vigorously deny claiming such a status.

Now, on the fringes of Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity one will find groups that do regard certain modern preachers and teachers as apostles and/or prophets. The Word of Faith movement views Kenneth Hagin as a prophet, for example. But evangelicals, including most Pentecostals and charismatics, are sternly critical of Hagin and similar figures.

You wrote:

Your comments have reminded me of the standard Canard wherein we are accused of not actually receiving a personal witness from the Holy Ghost if they don't receive the same witness. However, the NT teaches us (such as in the example you provided about the spat between Peter and Paul) that the Holy Ghost did NOT reveal the same message to all of the Apostles.

Not so. You are referring to the incident in Galatians 2:11-14. When Paul saw that Peter and Barnabas were going along with the Judaizers in refusing to have table fellowship with Gentile Christians, Paul did not go to them and say, "Look, fellows, God has given me a new revelation about this and you need to hear it, pray about it, and seek a witness of the Holy Ghost about it." No. He went to them (specifically Peter) and said something more like, "Peter, you are acting hypocritically. When the Judaizers are not around, you live like a Gentile; but when they come around, you act like Gentile brothers are not good enough for you and need to start living like Jews for you to accept them. You know better that that!" Notice that Paul explicitly says that Peter and Barnabas's behavior was hypocritical (v. 13). That means that Peter and Barnabas already knew enough to know that their disrespecting the Gentile Christians was wrong. They didn't need a special revelation or a new witness of the Holy Ghost to know it.

You wrote:

For instance, when Peter received the vision about eating with the Gentiles, the apostles and disciples who were with Peter on that particular mission were astonished to learn that God wanted the Gospel preached to the Gentiles as well. Up to that point, the Jews thought that God was exclusively theirs. Later, when Peter and his group returned to Jerusalem, a meeting was held with the rest of the Apostles who had no idea what had taken place. There was even a discussion before they would all accept what Peter had to say. This indicates to me that the Holy Ghost does not reveal the exact same message to every individual, or at the same time.

You're right about that, of course. Not everyone gets the message at the same time. However, what convinced Peter's Jewish Christian brothers that Cornelius's family had received the gospel and the gift of the Holy Spirit was that they had witnessed the Holy Spirit coming on those Gentiles and producing spontaneous outbursts of praise to God and speaking in tongues. That is, they had objective evidence that God had chosen to welcome Gentiles into the Christian community. Those Jewish Christians who were open to what God was doing had no trouble accepting this development once the facts were presented to them. The Judaizers did not, of course, accept the Gentile Christians, not because the Holy Ghost had not yet gotten around to revealing the truth to them but because the Judaizers rejected the truth that God had acted to include the Gentiles.

You wrote:

Other than witnessing to a person that Jesus is the Christ, each individual is taught and guided on a personal basis when God is ready to have the Holy Ghost do so. Whenever I try to point this out, my comments are glossed over and no clear explanation is ever given by those I have presented this to.

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that non-Mormon Christians who say they have not received a witness of the Holy Ghost to the truth of Mormonism have not received that witness because God is not ready to give it to them. Your biblical examples don't support this idea, as I have tried to explain above. From our perspective as evangelical Christians, once the truth has been presented to believers, God expects them to accept it; they don't need to wait for the Holy Spirit to give them a private spiritual experience or revelation before they can accept it, nor should they wait for such an experience. In some cases evangelicals who have read the Book of Mormon and prayed for God to help them know if it is from him or not have had strong experiences that they understood to be the Holy Spirit conveying to them that the Book of Mormon is false. In these instances it isn't a matter of them not yet getting the message you claim to have received; it is a matter of them getting a contrary message. And it is a legitimate question why that would happen, if both persons are supposedly being guided by the Holy Spirit.

[Rob Bowman]

Zerinus,

I've already answered this question. See post #38 (and the follow-up in post #47).

Who accused you of lying, and where?

[Rob Bowman]

ebeddoulos,

You wrote:

A simple yes or no will suffice:

If you are worshipping something which consists of nothing, do you not worship nothing?

And if what you worship is in fact nothing, is that not by definition atheism?

Yes and no.

If it were the case (which it is not) that I were worshiping something that is actually nothing, then I would be worshiping nothing. However, that would still not be atheism, because atheism is the belief that there is no God, not the worship of something that happens not to exist. For example, Shiva does not exist, but Hindus who worship Shiva are not atheists. If someone were to engage in the foolish worship of the Void, they would be worshiping nothing real, but they would not be atheists.

See, that wasn't so tough.

[Flyonthewall]

I don't think Mr. Bowman was lying when he said that, but I do think there was an over exaggeration on his part. To say that that belief is "Fairly common" with LDS may seem to him the truth, but in reality, just the opposite is true, at least from the LDS perspective...that it is fairly unknown to LDS.

I have never heard this position taken by any in the LDS church, from the pulpit or otherwise.

The citations that were brought forward for his proof, I would not understand them to be making the accusation of being athiest, but rather, stating an inability to understand the language of others describing God as immaterial.

From the language Mr. Bowman has used in this thread, he may use the word immaterial, but it seems to have a different meaning than it does to LDS.

It seems that he agrees that there is something that spirit is made of, just nothing that would compare in this physical world. So, even though he uses the term "immaterial" in a way that is consistent with his understanding, and does not agree with LDS language, he means essectially the same thing.

Now I don't want to put words in his mouth, so hopefully he will correct anything I have stated that was incorrect.

[Vance]

Vance,

You wrote:

Oh, I've answered nearly everyone else but him because while they're pushovers, his questions are just too doggone hard for me. He's got me stumped, and I was just desperately hoping no one would notice.

APPARENTLY SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jo1952]

Which reminds me of all the confussion and doubting Thomas' at the time of the ressurection itself. Each individual had to be witnessed to of the ressurection on an indivdual and customized basis.

Another great observation! Thanks!

jo

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

I've already answered this question. See post #38 (and the follow-up in post #47).

Oky, I found the posts. In brief, this is how the two conversations went:

An "immaterial" non-existant God who doesn't have a body is the very definition of Athieism.

It is fairly common for Mormons to view orthodox Christians as atheists. I applaud your bravado in saying so.

Zak is in his usual, over the top, polemical mode. I don’t think he really believes that orthodox Christians are atheists. But your response was equally over the top. It simply is not true that “It is fairly common for Mormons to view orthodox Christians as atheists”. I would say it is extremely uncommon.

I don't recall saying that Mormons believe that we are not Christians; what I said is that some (not all) Mormons believe that we are atheists. If that sounds confused, take it up with them.

Rob, please do not be pedantic in your approach. If one is an athiest, one is not Christian; they are juxtaposed and cannot exist in the same person....unless maybe we are discussing the Jesus Seminar and those poor souls don't have a clue about God, his Son, or the Holy Spirit, but I digress. You still have not provided a single reference where the LDS Church teaches or that LDS in any degree think that Christians are atheists. Until you do so, desist form repeating a lie. You know it is a lie and I know it is a lie; don't play games.

Well, you had actually said initially that it is “fairly common” for Mormons to view orthodox Christians as atheists—which is not true. Now you have softened it a bit and said that “some” Mormons believe that orthodox Christians are atheists. Well, if “some” means 0.1%, then that might be right. But remember that in a discussion of this kind things get heated up. Things are said at the spare of the moment without people giving themselves time to think about what they are saying.

But speaking in general terms, it is not true that Mormons believe that orthodox Christians are atheists—notwithstanding what you have quoted from Orson Pratt and one or two others. In the days of Orson Pratt, Mormons were constantly under attack from other “Christian” churches (as they are indeed today, though not to the same extent). A lot more of this kind of language was coming from the other side than was from us. Orson’s rhetorical and polemical stance was a response to a lot more of the same that was coming from the other side. It should not be taken literally as a doctrine of the Church, or even the true beliefs of Orson Pratt himself. It should be looked at in its true historical setting to be seen in a correct perspective.