James White On Mormonism

[David Waltz]

Earlier today, while visiting a blog I check in on from time to time, I noticed a recent thread (10-27-12) on Mormonism with the title, "Comparing Mormonism and theological Liberalism in the Two main candidates Faiths" (http://beggarsallref...heological.html). The author of the thread, Ken Temple, opens his post with:

1. An excellent summary of the bottom line of the Mormon religion. It is not Christian, as it at its core denies monotheism and God as the eternal uncaused Creator of all things.

He links to a 10-26-12 article written by James White: "The Real Issue with Mormonism: God is an exalted man" (http://americanvision.org/6549/the-real-issue-with-mormonism-god-is-an-exalted-man/).

Mr. Temple continues with:

Here is just one excerpt, I encourage everyone to read Dr. White's article and also get his two books on Mormonism, which are mentioned and highlighted in this article at American Vision.

I own, and have read, the two books that Mr. Temple, "encourge[d] everyone to read", and went to the link he provided to see what was recently posted. I must say, that I personally would NOT recommend any of the three contributions.

Whether or not those who may be interested in what Mr. White has published have actually read his two books, I am interested in the thoughts that others may have concerning his article.

Grace and peace,

David

[Kenngo1969]

Nice to see you, David! It's been much too long.

[Vance]

White is a typical anti-Mormon. He can neither accurately represent what Mormons believe, nor what the Bible teaches.

AND,

He is really good at creating straw men and then bashing them to pieces.

[theplains]

White is a typical anti-Mormon. He can neither accurately represent what Mormons believe, nor what the Bible teaches.

For your reference, I'll provide the scanned image of a page in an older version of "Teachings of the

Prophet Joseph Smith".

What specific parts on this page do you consider a lie or misrepresentation, if any?

Thanks,

Jim

[RBoylan]

White is a good defender of Reformed theology (cf. "The God Who Justifies: The Doctrine of Justification"), and really should stick to defending Calvinism in specific and Protestantism in general. However, he is far too reliant upon the works of the Tanners, Walter, and Marquardt on many issues, and makes arguments that have been long-refuted. Blake Ostler's works (chapter 12 of Problems of Theism and the Love of God; all of Of God and Gods [vol. 2 also interacts with Reformed theology]), for instance, refute White's charges he makes against LDS teachings about deity (that article is just a re-hash of material he has been spreading since his organisation was established in 1983 and in works such as "Is the Mormon My Brother?").

Just some quick thoughts.

Edited October 29, 2012 by RBoylan

[Calm]

Good to see you, David.

[Vance]

For your reference, I'll provide the scanned image of a page in an older version of "Teachings of the

Prophet Joseph Smith".

What specific parts on this page do you consider a lie or misrepresentation, if any?

Thanks,

Jim

You are rather funny. I said it was White that misrepresents what Mormons believe, not Joseph Smith.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

For your reference, I'll provide the scanned image of a page in an older version of "Teachings of the

Prophet Joseph Smith".

What specific parts on this page do you consider a lie or misrepresentation, if any?

Thanks,

Jim

Pooned

[David Waltz]

Hi Cal and Ken,

Thanks much for the welcome back—it is sincerely appreciated.

Grace and peace,

David

[David Waltz]

White is a typical anti-Mormon. He can neither accurately represent what Mormons believe, nor what the Bible teaches.

AND,

He is really good at creating straw men and then bashing them to pieces.

Hello Vance,

I pretty much agree with your above assessment(s). Mr. White has a penchant for ignoring evidence that is contrary to his views on any given subject—this is clearly the case concerning his treatments on Mormonism. He also avoids current LDS scholars via the mere assertion that they "do not represent the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", but then asks his readers to trust his conclusions of what truly constitutes "official" LDS doctrine, while crying 'foul' concerning anyone who presents solid arguments that he has not been entirely forthcoming in his representations.

I found his following words to be quite revealing:

In postmodern times, where fuzziness of thinking and inaccuracy of thought has become the hallmark of so much dialogue, and in particular, in the realm of religion, clear delineation of belief and doctrine has become outdated and unpopular. There is an automatic suspicion of anyone who seeks clarity in confession and doctrine.

Hmmm...does the man not realize that he is pretty much 'guilty' of everything he mentions above? My goodness...

Grace and peace,

David

[David Waltz]

White is a good defender of Reformed theology (cf. "The God Who Justifies: The Doctrine of Justification"), and really should stick to defending Calvinism in specific and Protestantism in general.

I would call him "Semi-Reformed", for he rejects some of the tenants held by the more 'traditional' Reformed folk (e.g. ecclesiology, infant baptism, the role of God's Law).

However, he is far too reliant upon the works of the Tanners, Walter, and Marquardt on many issues, and makes arguments that have been long-refuted. Blake Ostler's works (chapter 12 of Problems of Theism and the Love of God; all of Of God and Gods [vol. 2 also interacts with Reformed theology]), for instance, refute White's charges he makes against LDS teachings about deity (that article is just a re-hash of material he has been spreading since his organisation was established in 1983 and in works such as "Is the Mormon My Brother?").

Just some quick thoughts.

Agreed. His failure to interact with LDS scholars like Blake Ostler (I don't recall him quoting anything from Ostler's 3 volume work on LDS theology) is a glaring weakness.

Grace and peace,

David

[ed2276]

I thought that belief in Jesus Christ as one's Lord, Saviour, and Redeemer, who suffered and died on the cross and was resurrected on the third day to reconcile us to the Father was the measure of Christianity. Now it is accepting monotheism which is Christianity's measure?

[mfbukowski]

David, good to see you again.

The entire problem here is the belief that a pagan Greek idea- the idea of an uncaused cause is taken as the definition of what constitutes the God of Christianity.

I am sorry but Greek paganism does not define the God of Christianity.

Edited October 30, 2012 by mfbukowski

[RBoylan]

Hi Dave,

I would agree with your use of "semi-reformed" with respect to White's rejection of infant baptism and the like. I used "Reformed" in terms of his soteriology (holding to TULIP; being a staunch defender of forensic justification; etc).

I don't think White is even familiar with Ostler's work. Both vol. 2 and 3 should be read by those who *seriously* wish to interact with (1) LDS soteriology and (2) Mormon teachings on the "number" and "nature" of deity, but, alas, White seems ignorant of them. He often prides himself on keeping up with Catholic apologetic works (e.g., those of Sungenis; Ray; Hahn; Madrid, etc), but is woefully negligent with respect to sound LDS works on issues such as theology and the Book of Mormon.

[Calm]

Now it is accepting monotheism which is Christianity's measure?

And only a certain brand of monotheism to boot!

[ERayR]

Agreed. His failure to interact with LDS scholars like Blake Ostler (I don't recall him quoting anything from Ostler's 3 volume work on LDS theology) is a glaring weakness.

Grace and peace,

David

What is troubling to me is that too many are relying on scholars to define the church rather than the General Authorities and personal revelation.

[Seraphim32]

David, good to see you again.

The entire problem here is the belief that a pagan Greek idea- the idea of an uncaused cause is taken as the definition of what constitutes the God of Christianity.

I am sorry but Greek paganism does not define the God of Christianity.

Your statement confuses correlation with causation. Did the idea of a God that must be uncaused arise in a society in which many of the people were pagan? Sure, but the actual arguments for an uncaused cause in themselves have nothing to do with paganism; in fact the Aristotelian argument for an unmoved mover refutes paganism.

Greeks pagans typically believed in Gods that had human characteristics, such as human-like emotions and physical bodies. Sounds more like the LDS faith than traditional Christianity to me.

[MiserereNobis]

David, good to see you again.

The entire problem here is the belief that a pagan Greek idea- the idea of an uncaused cause is taken as the definition of what constitutes the God of Christianity.

I am sorry but Greek paganism does not define the God of Christianity.

There you go, bashing on the Greeks again

[mfbukowski]

Your statement confuses correlation with causation.

Hardly. I have read my Hume.

Did the idea of a God that must be uncaused arise in a society in which many of the people were pagan? Sure, but the actual arguments for an uncaused cause in themselves have nothing to do with paganism; in fact the Aristotelian argument for an unmoved mover refutes paganism.

Only if you haven't read Hume.

Greeks pagans typically believed in Gods that had human characteristics, such as human-like emotions and physical bodies. Sounds more like the LDS faith than traditional Christianity to me.

Yes, it's sad the way "traditional Christianity" became "tradition" isn't it- see, we believe in an apostasy before that "tradition" became entrenched.

The notion that God is the Man of Holiness is indeed the basis of the LDS faith, thank God for the restoration of that truth!

It seems you don't know much about our faith. Try mormon.org

[mfbukowski]

There you go, bashing on the Greeks again

I resemble that remark!

[Vance]

Sure, but the actual arguments for an uncaused cause in themselves have nothing to do with paganism; in fact the Aristotelian argument for an unmoved mover refutes paganism.

Perhaps you can help me out here.

So God sat (not to imply any physical attribute but simply for lack of a better word in my vocabulary) ETERNALLY in dark emptiness and then suddenly, He (not to imply any gender) decides to create everything from nothing.

What caused this sudden change?

[Vance]

Greeks pagans typically believed in Gods that had human characteristics, such as human-like emotions and physical bodies. Sounds more like the LDS faith than traditional Christianity to me.

So, does your Jesus have a physical body?

Is your Jesus divine?

Does your Jesus have "human-like emotions"?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[mfbukowski]

By understanding God to be an idealized, glorified, perfected Man, Mormonism solves the problem which has played out over 2,000 years of theology- the problem of transcendence vs immanence.

If God is transcendent, essentially a Platonic Form of Goodness, he cannot be involved with lowly humans and be our Father and hear and answer prayers.

On the other hand, if he is immanent, it was believed that he could not be omniscient and omnipotent. So the whole thing was solved by giving Him two "natures" that of God and that of Man- represented in the dual natures of Jesus.

But that really just defines away the difference by giving the word "nature" some magic ability to create an imaginary difference.

What is the nature of man? To be manly.

What is the nature of God? To be Godly

What is the nature of a dog? To be a dog. What is explained by the word "nature"? Nothing! It is like saying that a sleeping pill works by its ability to induce sleep. A sleeping pill's nature is that it induces sleep.

That explains nothing!

So the Neoplatonic explanation does not explain anything, as 20th century philosophy has shown conclusively.

Yet the Mormon explanation goes back to the Biblical roots of the Council of the Gods, discussed much on this forum.

Clearly we are the heirs to original Christianity as opposed to the apostate "traditional Christianity". The two thousand years of apostate theology have little relevance to Mormon theology and the definition of an immanent, Human God.

Edited October 30, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Seraphim32]

Hardly. I have read my Hume.

Only if you haven't read Hume.

Well, if you are a follower of Hume there isn't really any point in debating anything further, since we can't speak of connections or causes. I personally think Hume takes his skepticism to nonsensical lengths.

It seems you don't know much about our faith. Try mormon.org

Don't I? As an individual who was Mormon for 20+ years, studied under notable LDS scholars, and read various works by Nibley, Ostler, Givens, and the like I am curious as to where you see ignorances of my knowledge of the LDS faith.

Perhaps you can help me out here.

So God sat (not to imply any physical attribute but simply for lack of a better word in my vocabulary) ETERNALLY in dark emptiness and then suddenly, He (not to imply any gender) decides to create everything from nothing.

What caused this sudden change?

Notice that your statement is one filled with temporal terms that cannot rightly be applied to a being outside of time.

So, does your Jesus have a physical body?

Is your Jesus divine?

Does your Jesus have "human-like emotions"?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Jesus has a body, but not quite like the body we have. I can't pass through solid structures. As for emotions I am not sure how Christ experiences emotions.

[Seraphim32]

By understanding God to be an idealized, glorified, perfected Man, Mormonism solves the problem which has played out over 2,000 years of theology- the problem of transcendence vs immanence.

If God is transcendent, essentially a Platonic Form of Goodness, he cannot be involved with lowly humans and be our Father and hear and answer prayers.

On the other hand, if he is immanent, it was believed that he could not be omniscient and omnipotent. So the whole thing was solved by giving Him two "natures" that of God and that of Man- represented in the dual natures of Jesus.

But that really just defines away the difference by giving the word "nature" some magic ability to create an imaginary difference.

What is the nature of man? To be manly.

What is the nature of God? To be Godly

What is the nature of a dog? To be a dog. What is explained by the word "nature"? Nothing! It is like saying that a sleeping pill works by its ability to induce sleep. A sleeping pill's nature is that it induces sleep.

That explains nothing!

So the Neoplatonic explanation does not explain anything, as 20th century philosophy has shown conclusively.

Yet the Mormon explanation goes back to the Biblical roots of the Council of the Gods, discussed much on this forum.

Clearly we are the heirs to original Christianity as opposed to the apostate "traditional Christianity". The two thousand years of apostate theology have little relevance to Mormon theology and the definition of an immanent, Human God.

The statements above are far too brief to even come close to demonstrating that the LDS faith is clearly anything. You don't do justice to the Platonic tradition, totally overlook the Aristotelian and Scholastic tradition, and give a nonsensical account of Aristotelian "nature".