Why Aren't There More Mormonism Vs. Calvinism Threads Here?

[Stargazer]

19 minutes ago, Lucian Hodoboc said:

Why is secular humanism our common enemy? I would have thought that satanism was our enemy.

Secular humanism is the satanic conceit that humans are all there are.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

We need to gather around our similarities in opposition to our common enemy, secular humanism.

That is a distracting misdirection. Our real enemy are the Mongol hordes.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

That is a distracting misdirection. Our real enemy are the Mongol hordes.

Barbarians at the gates of Rome... (wait, isn't a Mormon temple being built in the suburbs of Rome? hmmm....)

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Barbarians at the gates of Rome... (wait, isn't a Mormon temple being built in the suburbs of Rome? hmmm....)

Yes, it worked. Distract them with the barbarians at the gates while we sneak over the wall and build a beautiful barbarian building inside.

[bluebell]

Good to see you cksalmon!  It's been a while!

[smac97]

Over 20 years ago, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen penned a fascinating article: Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?

This was followed up by an exchange between Paul Owen and evangelical author John Weldon.  See here and here (and here).

One of the main points raised by Mosser and Owen was this:

Quote

The second conclusion we have come to is that Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex.

I think that was correct then, and is substantially more correct now.  The article was intended to spur Evangelicals into better addressing apologetic issues pertaining to the Church.  I don't think they have done so in the 20+ years since this article was written.  I don't think their Calvinist cousins have improved, either.

As it is, those defending the Church seem to be spending far more time arguing with secularists, disgruntled members, and former members.  Either we have lost interest in debating the Calvinists, or they with us, or both.

Thanks,

-Smac 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

think that was correct then, and is substantially more correct now.  The article was intended to spur Evangelicals into better addressing apologetic issues pertaining to the Church.  I don't think they have done so in the 20+ years since this article was written.  I don't think their Calvinist cousins have improved, either.

I don't think that's fair. Moser and company did a followup book engaging Mormon apologetics more directly. A few people, like Blake Ostler responded to the arguments such as Kalam arguments. By and large though I think the fundamental problem they had was that most people just don't buy Calvinist ontology - the premises out of which their arguments rest. Typically you quickly reach a point where one just says, I don't accept your ontology and there's nothing else to say. While Mormonism has trouble with "fantastic events" outside of common day experience, its ontology is basically naturalism and thus easy to accept or else its ontological commitments are vague or non-existent and thus open to numerous interpretations. That ends up being a strength rather than a weakness.

The problem is that the place where Mormons have weaknesses are in practice also the same places Calvinists also have weaknesses. You might point out the historicity problems given public evidence for the Book of Mormon but the resurrection of Jesus and most of the Old Testament have the same problems. Further there's an associated problem that most Evangelicals and even non-Evangelicals in the reform tradition tend to not care about theology or especially ontology. To the point they're usually ignorant of it and have heretical beliefs. The real issue for Calvinists thus is the rise of the Nones and the rise of theological disengaged believers. It's really not Mormonism anymore.

Likewise for Mormons, the clear issue is also the rise of the Nones. To the degree Calvinists or Evangelicals more broadly land successful blows on Mormonism by pointing out problematic events in history it just doesn't have the effect they expect. Mormons or former Calvinists who are attracted to Mormons won't become Calvinists again. They'd just disengage.

However in terms of the formal arguments, to the degree anyone still cares, I think Moser did bring about some engagement. I'm not sure the engagement works because often it hinges on controversial ontologies like Cartesianism. But there really was a productive 10 years or so.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that's fair. Moser and company did a followup book engaging Mormon apologetics more directly. A few people, like Blake Ostler responded to the arguments such as Kalam arguments.

You raise a fair point.  But The New Mormon Challenge was published sixteen years ago, and the responses to it shortly thereafter (see here and here).  Has it left any meaningful and enduring imprint on the apologetic landscape?  

Quote

By and large though I think the fundamental problem they had was that most people just don't buy Calvinist ontology - the premises out of which their arguments rest. Typically you quickly reach a point where one just says, I don't accept your ontology and there's nothing else to say. While Mormonism has trouble with "fantastic events" outside of common day experience, its ontology is basically naturalism and thus easy to accept or else its ontological commitments are vague or non-existent and thus open to numerous interpretations. That ends up being a strength rather than a weakness.

The problem is that the place where Mormons have weaknesses are in practice also the same places Calvinists also have weaknesses. You might point out the historicity problems given public evidence for the Book of Mormon but the resurrection of Jesus and most of the Old Testament have the same problems. Further there's an associated problem that most Evangelicals and even non-Evangelicals in the reform tradition tend to not care about theology or especially ontology. To the point they're usually ignorant of it and have heretical beliefs. The real issue for Calvinists thus is the rise of the Nones and the rise of theological disengaged believers. It's really not Mormonism anymore.

Likewise for Mormons, the clear issue is also the rise of the Nones. To the degree Calvinists or Evangelicals more broadly land successful blows on Mormonism by pointing out problematic events in history it just doesn't have the effect they expect. Mormons or former Calvinists who are attracted to Mormons won't become Calvinists again. They'd just disengage.

This is a very good point.  I appreciate it.

Quote

However in terms of the formal arguments, to the degree anyone still cares, I think Moser did bring about some engagement. I'm not sure the engagement works because often it hinges on controversial ontologies like Cartesianism. But there really was a productive 10 years or so.

That long?  I need to get out more.

Thanks,

-Smac

[RevTestament]

18 hours ago, cksalmon said:

Ah. Fair enough. I was just attempting to (comically) stir the communal pot. I don't actually think you're collectively avoiding Calvinism, although I'm individually doing some of that myself these days. Cheers!

Great. Ya' know it was predestined that you would learn that Calvinism is not the true path...

Glad you are checkin' in on the Saints...

(I hear New Orleans really needs them)

[The Refiner's Fire]

In our Facebook group they are there every day 😉

In my university they are there every day 😉

So few believe in God here but when they do —> presestination time

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

That long?  I need to get out more.

They were on LDS-Phil for a long while. So I'm going primarily by discussions there and judging when it ended by when LDS-Phil for the most part dried up. It's too bad as during its heyday LDS-Phil was great. LDS-Herm overlapped with it for a while but it was much more hermeneutic and continental philosophy oriented and thus not of interest to Calvinists who for historic reasons are much more in traditional analytic philosophical traditions. (I'm sure there are some Continental philosophers who are in the reform tradition but you don't hear much about it theologically - although perhaps I'm just exposing my ignorance)

Edited November 29, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Vance]

On 11/27/2018 at 6:20 PM, cksalmon said:

I check in once a year or so to fight the good fight. It seems you folks are AVOIDING Calvinism these days, for good reason!

 

Could it be that the Book of Mormon pretty much refutes Calvinism.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Vance said:

Could it be that the Book of Mormon pretty much refutes Calvinism.

It rejects it. I am not sure it refutes it. As far as I can see it does not really address the issue at all beyond asserting basic agency.

[Anakin7]

     John Calvin - from my LDS, Saint, Christian, Sentinel, Son Of Thunder, Kryptonian, Warrior Archives - http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/johncalvin.htm  http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/hangorfall.htm 

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/calvin.htm http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/point5.htm   http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/spurgeon.htm  http://www.bible.ca/calvinism.htm  http://www.bible.ca/cal-P-refutation.htm  http://www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htm  http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/servetus.html 

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

 

Edited November 30, 2018 by Anakin7

[Bernard Gui]

On 11/28/2018 at 5:58 AM, Lucian Hodoboc said:

Why is secular humanism our common enemy? I would have thought that satanism was our enemy.

That too.

 

[Bernard Gui]

On 11/28/2018 at 6:22 AM, The Nehor said:

That is a distracting misdirection. Our real enemy are the Mongol hordes.

And those who conspire to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

[Bernard Gui]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It rejects it. I am not sure it refutes it. As far as I can see it does not really address the issue at all beyond asserting basic agency.

This is a pretty good rejection and refutation....

Quote

Helaman 14

28 And the angel said unto me that many shall see greater things than these, to the intent that they might believe that these signs and these wonders should come to pass upon all the face of this land, to the intent that there should be no cause for unbelief among the children of men--
29 And this to the intent that whosoever will believe might be saved, and that whosoever will not believe, a righteous judgment might come upon them; and also if they are condemned they bring upon themselves their own condemnation.
30 And now remember, remember, my brethren, that whosoever perisheth, perisheth unto himself; and whosoever doeth iniquity, doeth it unto himself; for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free.
31 He hath given unto you that ye might know good from evil, and he hath given unto you that ye might choose life or death; and ye can do good and be restored unto that which is good, or have that which is good restored unto you; or ye can do evil, and have that which is evil restored unto you.

This addresses the issue directly...

Quote

2 Nephi 2

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.
28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;
29 And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.

 

[Vance]

On 11/30/2018 at 7:00 AM, Bernard Gui said:

This is a pretty good rejection and refutation....

This addresses the issue directly...

 

Yes and yes, it does.  There is also Alma Chapter 42. Here are the highlights.

 

Quote

 

  15 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.

  16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.

  17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?

  18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.

  19 Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?

  20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin.

  21 And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?

  22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

  23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

  24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.

 

There are these and many more.  It is no wonder that Calvinist HATE the Book of Mormon.

Edited December 1, 2018 by Vance

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Vance said:

Yes and yes, is does.  There is also Alma Chapter 42. Here are the highlights.

 

There are these and many more.  It is no wonder that Calvinist HATE the Book of Mormon.

I love this scripture....the teaching and it's structure.

It's an excellent example of the parallelistic form called anadiplosis, climax, stair step, or gradation...

look at it this way...chains of related words that lead the reader from methodically one to the next and then on to the big idea at the end.

 

5 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about

except an atonement should be made;

therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world,

to bring about the plan of mercy,

to appease the demands of justice,

that God might be a perfect, just God,

and a merciful God also.

 

  16 Now, repentance could not come unto men

except there were a punishment,

which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, 

affixed opposite to the plan of happiness,

which was as eternal also as the life of the soul. [big idea]

 

  17 Now, how could a man repent

except he should sin?

How could he sin

if there was no law?

How could there be a law

save there was a punishment?

  18 Now, there was a punishment affixed,

and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.

  19 Now, if there was no law given—

if a man murdered

     he should die—

     would he be afraid he would die

if he should murder?

  20 And also, if there was no law given against sin

men would not be afraid to sin.

  21 And if there was no law given,

if men sinned

what could justice do,

or mercy either,

for they would have no claim upon the creature? [big idea]

 

  22 But there is a law given,

and a punishment affixed,

and a repentance granted;

which repentance,

mercy claimeth;

otherwise, justice claimeth the creature

and executeth the law,

and the law inflicteth the punishment;

if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed,

and God would cease to be God. [Big idea]

 

  23 But God ceaseth not to be God, 

and mercy claimeth the penitent,

and mercy cometh

because of the atonement;

and the atonement bringeth to pass

the resurrection of the dead;

and the resurrection of the dead

bringeth back men into the presence of God;      [Pre-mortal existence]

and thus they are restored into his presence, 

to be judged

according to their works,

according to the law

and justice.

  24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands,

and also mercy claimeth all which is her own;

and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved. [The Really Big Idea]

[cksalmon]

On 11/27/2018 at 8:42 PM, Glenn101 said:

Oh, that is okay. These days it is not Mormons vs. Calvinists or Mormons vs. Catholics or even Mormons vs. ex-Mormons. It is mostly Mormons vs. Mormons.

Glenn

Yeah, last time I was around these parts, there was an apparent conflagration in the midst of some apologetic factions. Would love to hear how that story played out. 

[cksalmon]

On 11/29/2018 at 6:45 PM, The Nehor said:

It rejects it. I am not sure it refutes it. As far as I can see it does not really address the issue at all beyond asserting basic agency.

Agreed. It's more like a hard pass on the concept rather than an argument against it. 

[cksalmon]

On 11/28/2018 at 9:57 AM, bluebell said:

Good to see you cksalmon!  It's been a while!

👋

 

Hi, Bluebell!

[Glenn101]

2 minutes ago, cksalmon said:

Yeah, last time I was around these parts, there was an apparent conflagration in the midst of some apologetic factions. Would love to hear how that story played out. 

Well, no one died from the conflagration that I am aware of 😎 but some feelings probably were hurt. Of course with a last name like Thigpen I developed a thick skin long ago. (Now there may be some here and there who might regard me as more thick headed or bone headed.)

As for the actual debate between competing theologies, it really comes down to an interpretation of the scriptures and the Holy Ghost because there are logical holes and gaps in development of every Christian denomination, all 30,000 plus of them.

Glenn

[cksalmon]

On 11/30/2018 at 7:00 AM, Bernard Gui said:

This is a pretty good rejection and refutation...

I would disagree for the same old, obvious reason, Bernard. The relevant teachings of BoM are a disproof of X just insofar as one grants them authority. So, for you, I totally get it: BoM clearly affirms propositions imcompossible with Calvinism.

But that's hardly a neutral ground argument against Calvinism. 

👋

Edited December 3, 2018 by cksalmon
To wave hi!

[Coreyb]

On 11/27/2018 at 5:20 PM, cksalmon said:

I check in once a year or so to fight the good fight. It seems you folks are AVOIDING Calvinism these days, for good reason!

 

Cuz Calvinism is not interesting