Orthodox Christians Are Atheists

[CV75]

The evidence surveyed here proves that Mormons throughout LDS Church history, beginning a year after Joseph Smith’s death, have repeatedly asserted that the orthodox Christian view of God as immaterial spirit is a form of atheism or tantamount to atheism.

This is still very different than saying, “It is fairly common for Mormons to view orthodox Christians as atheists.” You failed to respond to a CFR in the earlier thread and this new thread is supposed to accomplish (what?).

When read properly, the quotes you provided actually mean the following:

A Christian application of the doctrine of immaterialism cannot produce sufficient faith in Christ to understand and live according to the complete Gospel, and so the doctrine is a functional atheism in this regard.

However, other doctrines of orthodox Christianity certainly do generate elements of faith in Christ (not a fullness), and those who apply these principles are not practicing atheism in these areas.

This is very different than saying, “It is fairly common for Mormons to view orthodox Christians as atheists.”

You should say instead, “It is fairly common for Mormons to view orthodox Christians as missing out on certain truths (such as God is not an immaterial being), and lacking correct beliefs on these points is as good as having no beleif on these points.”

[Calm]

It is in the "substance" versus "purpose" part that we differ, not the trinity itself.

However, the traditional Trinity includes the definition of substance so it is important that if you claim LDS are trinitarians you make clear that we are social/organization trinitarians and not traditional Trinitarians. Using the term "the Trinity" is different than using "a trinity", which is what LDS are doing when they say that the Godhead is a trinity, meaning a social/organized unit of three.

[Tarski]

Well, if the orthodox Christian God is the same one whose existence theologians attempt to prove using modal logic (say Godel or Plantinga) then I can see the point. What kind of God is that??

By the way, do you have a version of the trinity doctrine that some other Christian (a theologian say) will not reject as "mere modalism" or some other heresy? It seems to me that any version that isn't a flat contradiction just isn't mysterious enough to be the right version.

Hey Rob, I am in suspense. Can you answer my question posed above?

[Rob Bowman]

Tarski,

Hey Rob, I am in suspense. Can you answer my question posed above?

In addition to various responsibilities reaching a tipping point of overwhelming in the past couple of days, my eyes have been sore for over 24 hours and I've been forced to stay off the computer most of the day.

Well, if the orthodox Christian God is the same one whose existence theologians attempt to prove using modal logic (say Godel or Plantinga) then I can see the point. What kind of God is that??

You seem to have already formed an opinion on the matter. What would you have me say? I see nothing wrong with trying to see what we can show about the existence of God using logic. Plantinga would be the first in line to say that such proofs would at best only go so far and that we don't need them to be rational in believing that God exists.

By the way, do you have a version of the trinity doctrine that some other Christian (a theologian say) will not reject as "mere modalism" or some other heresy? It seems to me that any version that isn't a flat contradiction just isn't mysterious enough to be the right version

I am a Christian theologian, and I don't reject the doctrine of the Trinity as modalism or some other heresy. Sorry that I cannot accommodate you, but I don't believe that the Trinity is a flat contradiction.

[Pahoran]

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.

Okay; so why did you inflate their status, if it wasn't for polemical purposes?

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.

"Fairly common" is nice and vague. I'll grant you that some Latter-day Saints have made that argument at times -- I've certainly heard of it before -- but trying to pretend that it's some kind of standard Latter-day Saint talking point is nonsense.

I don't need to establish that it was ever official LDS teaching, although a decent case can be made that it was,

No. It cannot.

Not if your concept of "decent" actually includes any measure of honesty, anyhow.

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.

I shall stipulate that some Latter-day Saints have said it.

I shall also stipulate that it is much fairer than the false accusation that Latter-day Saints worship "another Jesus." After all, the claim was never that creedalists didn't believe in God in some sense; rather it was that a kind of functional atheism was a consequence of creed-inspired immaterialism. There really is a fairly large semantic overlap between "there is no God" and "nothing is God," isn't there?

Nevertheless, despite the fact that it is kinder, fairer, more intelligent and more honest than the usual EV-based accusations against the Church of Jesus Christ, it is still a flawed representation of creedal Christianity.

But then, any attempt to represent or expound someone else's beliefs inevitably results in flaws. It's probably better that we all stop doing it and let everyone speak for their own faith tradition.

Don't you agree?

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.

Nice try.

Regards,

Pahoran

[erichard]

wow this thread is still going.

I think those who claim Mormonism has much in common with atheism are onto something. I never thought Orthodox Christians had much in common with atheism.

see this.

Richard

[Pahoran]

wow this thread is still going.

I think those who claim Mormonism has much in common with atheism are onto something.

Wrong preposition; if you had said on instead of onto then you'd be right.

I never thought Orthodox Christians had much in common with atheism.

see this.

Richard

Ah. Another feeble polemic.

Regards,

Pahoran

[changed]

This is still very different than saying, “It is fairly common for Mormons to view orthodox Christians as atheists.”

Most Mormons view other Christians as Christians. I just went to a Gladys Knight concert, she talked about how before she joined the LDS faith, she was already a Christian, that our faith just added more details to it. She also talked about how more than half of our hymns are from other denominations. Elder Oaks recently remarked in his Twin Towers talk all the similarities - not only between Christians, but between Jewish, Muslim, and all the Abrahamic religious faiths.

we believe we have a spirit - some would say our spirit does not really exist because it is hard to describe, but our spirit exists. God might be harder to describe, but that does not mean that other Christians do not understand the reality of Him.

[Tarski]

Tarski,

In addition to various responsibilities reaching a tipping point of overwhelming in the past couple of days, my eyes have been sore for over 24 hours and I've been forced to stay off the computer most of the day.

You seem to have already formed an opinion on the matter. What would you have me say? I see nothing wrong with trying to see what we can show about the existence of God using logic. Plantinga would be the first in line to say that such proofs would at best only go so far and that we don't need them to be rational in believing that God exists.

I am a Christian theologian, and I don't reject the doctrine of the Trinity as modalism or some other heresy. Sorry that I cannot accommodate you, but I don't believe that the Trinity is a flat contradiction.

You misunderstood completely. I asked you to give me an explanation of the Trinity that does not amount to a heresy like modalism.

Give me your version and let me see if it is a flat contradiction or not.

Exactly what is it?

[Ahab]

I am not an expert in these areas, but like to dip my toes in them just for the fun of it. The way I understand it is that space is not just nothing; it is something; and it has certain physical properties or attributes. For example, according to General Relativity, space-time is curved by the presence of a gravitational field. The observed phenomena can best be explained in terms of the curvature of space. If that is true, it would suggest that space is something; it is not just nothing. Here is a quote and a reference:

.

This demonstrates in a (relatively) simple way that when we consider the laws of physics in a gravitational field, we will need to consider them in a curved space. One of the basic principles of classical physics is that light travels in straight lines, but in a gravitational field it follows a curved path. This is good evidence that a flat geometry will not be adequate for describing the passage of light or other electromagnetic waves in a gravitational field. In other words, our familiar "flat" space-time will need to be replaced by a curved space time.

.

Note that strictly this argument only demonstrates the curvature of the spatial part of space-time–the temporal part is curved too, but I think you will agree that this is a much more difficult concept to envisage, and as such is best left to the experts!

Link

.

I would say that gravitational forces in space are a result of the things in certain areas of space and that without those things that produce those gravitational forces those regions of space wouldn't have that effect.

Or, as I said before, if all of the matter in space wasn't there all there be is the nothing out there in space.

[Ahab]

This is standard modern physics, and it is mathematically consistent.

That doesn't prove anything. A lot of physics and mathematics is based on theoretics and imaginary numbers, and just because something is logical that doesn't meant that is is true.

Space is more than just nothing.

Like? What do you think it is?

If you take out all the matter, you are still left with space.

I accept that. I'm saying space is the place where everything is.

Space has dimensions, such as length, width, and height.

I'm talking about space, generally. I know there is space between things, which is how you can get dimensions, but generally there is no end to all of it because you could keep maneuvering around all of the matter in it while still going basically in a straight line.

Empty space is also teeming with invisible "virtual" particles that pop in and out of existence, so there is a residual energy left over in empty space even if all matter is removed.

The matter in space is what makes those regions of space something to be noticed, and if the matter wasn't there at all you would have nothing to observe or experience.

You can think of the space in the universe as the surface of a balloon. If you want, you can put little points on the balloon with a marker to represent particles of matter, but the if you don't include these points of matter, the balloon still exists. If you expand the balloon, it gets bigger, and if there are points of matter present, they get further away from each other. Also, the balloon doesn't have any borders (at least in the second dimension). The analogy isn't perfect, but it's basically what's happening.

That's hogwash, and there is nothing you can use to represent space because everything you could use has an end to it, while space actually has no end.

Think of nothingness that goes on forever and ever in all directions, and then within that space imagine some matter. The only question remaining is how much matter there is.

[Ahab]

The total volume of space doesn't change. It is still infinite. However, the spaces between things can still expand. It can be mathematically proven. But in any event, we don't know whether space is actually infinite, or just extremely large.

It is infinite.

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

Okay; so why did you inflate their status, if it wasn't for polemical purposes?

I have already explained that I did not inflate their status.

The rest of your post is more quibbling about the extent to which Mormons have taken the view documented from the Pratts, Roberts, Talmage, and McConkie. I assume that these leading LDS thinkers ranging from the 1840s to the 1960s are fairly representative of what Mormons thought during that period, an assumption that seems justifiable given the status especially of Talmage's book throughout most of the twentieth century and the lack of any evidence to the contrary. If you don't like this argument that is your business, but to suggest that there is anything dishonest about my reasoning is itself dishonest.

[Rob Bowman]

Tarski,

You wrote:

You misunderstood completely. I asked you to give me an explanation of the Trinity that does not amount to a heresy like modalism. Give me your version and let me see if it is a flat contradiction or not.

Exactly what is it?

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons (loci of relationality) co-existing eternally as one God (one transcendent, self-existent being who is solely responsible for the creation of all other beings).

[Vance]

Bowman said this.

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

And then he said this.

I have already explained that I did not inflate their status.

Humm.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Vance

[ebeddoulos]

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons (loci of relationality) co-existing eternally as one God (one transcendent, self-existent being who is solely responsible for the creation of all other beings).

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons (loci of relationality) co-existing eternally as one God (one transcendent, self-existent being who is solely responsible for the creation of all other beings).

Three persons = the one being who created all the other beings. Interesting. Who/what/where are these other beings that the one being created?

And in case you did not notice, that was three queries combined into one inquiry.

[LeSellers]

Three persons = the one being who created all the other beings. Interesting. Who/what/where are these other beings that the one being created?

And in case you did not notice, that was three queries combined into one inquiry.

Trininquerianism?

Lehi

Edited September 26, 2011 by LeSellers

[Anakin7]

Three persons = the one being who created all the other beings. Interesting. Who/what/where are these other beings that the one being created?

And in case you did not notice, that was three queries combined into one inquiry.

I thought that the word "Being" in non LDS Christian thought/usage means "nature" and that the word "person" anchiently referred to a "mask" worn by an actor ?.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Tarski]

Tarski,

You wrote:

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons (loci of relationality) co-existing eternally as one God (one transcendent, self-existent being who is solely responsible for the creation of all other beings).

Ambiguous. It looks like I will have to throw out my previous idea of what a God is and then find out what your stipulative definition for "God" is. Otherwise this has no content for me.

Here is a new word I just made up. It is "Parpair". A Parpair is a being consisting of two persons (loci of relationality) who are parents of a nuclear family. They coexist as one Parpair.

In other words, your definition is consistent with "God" being a divine corporation of 3 people each separately deserving the title God in another sense, a group. A Mormon could agree with that.

A being could simply be a mereological sum of three persons. For all your definition says, that could be the case with the Trinity. The word coexist is in there to avoid that interpretation but what does coexist mean here??? My parents coexist.

In other words, you need to unpack the terms or it is just a prepackaged answer that Christians on the street could memorize and feel good about without knowing what they are saying.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Tarski

[ERayR]

I thought that the word "Being" in non LDS Christian thought/usage means "nature" and that the word "person" anchiently referred to a "mask" worn by an actor ?.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Couldn't be. Rob has assured all that he does not endorse modalism. Then again he assured us he did not try to inflate the standings in the church of those he quoted (see above).

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You, of course, have never, ever said anything with less than full precision.

Right.

[CV75]

leading LDS thinkers ranging from the 1840s to the 1960s are fairly representative of what Mormons thought during that period

...and still today. But again, the view is not that "orthodox Christians are atheists." The view is that the principle of immaterialism is as worthwhile as atheism in promoting faith in Christ. Many other principles in orthodox Christianity do promote faith, but this one, among others, doesn’t. This is consistent with the view that the one true Church had to be restored out of apostasy.

[Rob Bowman]

ebeddoulos,

I am not going to engage someone in discussion who ridicules my beliefs:

[Rob Bowman]

Tarski,

You're just playing games. You obviously know enough to know what I mean. You asked for a definition that was not self-contradictory; I gave you one.

[Rob Bowman]

All,

I have accomplished what I set out to do in this thread: to document that my statement about it being fairly common for Mormons to describe orthodox Christians as atheists was not a lie and in fact has significant support from leading LDS figures for most of the LDS Church's history. I am not interested in responding to quibbles and gotchas that try to make my assertions more precise than I intended them or that try to divert attention from the point I was making. As I have explained in a couple of other threads, my time for these online discussions is now severely limited. I can't stop further posts to this thread, but if I ignore any such further posts, you know why.