by SteveDensleyJr on January 30th, 2013
What is an “apostasy?” Are there any scriptures that say there was an apostasy that required a restoration? Do we know when the apostasy ocurred? Does that matter? In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on August 19, 2012, Martin Tanner responds to claims that an apostasy did not occur.
This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR. (Listeners will note that the end of the recording is cut off prematurely.)
Podcast: Download (8.6MB)
Posted in Early Christianity, podcast | 2 Comments »
by SteveDensleyJr on January 16th, 2013
Do Mormons believe they will become gods? Is this belief supported in the Bible? Are there other Christian religions that have similar beliefs? In this episode of Religion Today that originally aired on March 27, 2011, Martin Tanner discusses the concept of deification, or theosis, and the way in which it has been discussed in the Bible, by early Christians, and by leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR.
Podcast: Download (8.7MB)
Posted in Early Christianity, podcast | 2 Comments »
by SteveDensleyJr on January 9th, 2013
One of the primary reasons some claim that Mormons are not Christians is because the Mormon view of the trinity differs from that of most modern Christians. Mormons claim that their view of the Godhead is correct and that the view of God as set forth in various creeds, such as that which was proclaimed at the Nicean Council, is a corrupt version of the truth. Some modern Christians counter that the concept of the trinity as believed by most Christians today was already considered doctrine by the time of the Council of Nicea and the council was simply held to address other heresies. So what really happened? Why does the majority view of the nature of Christ differ from the view of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on September 2, 2012, Martin Tanner discusses these issues.
This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR.
Podcast: Download (8.7MB)
Posted in Doctrine, Early Christianity, podcast | 3 Comments »
by SteveDensleyJr on December 26th, 2012
Is the Bible the complete, inerrant, inspired, infallible word of God? Is it a book that has errors in it now, but that did not have errors in the original? Have changes in the Bible been made? If so, why and what were some of those changes? These questions and others are discussed in this episode of Religion Today, with Martin Tanner, which originally aired on KSL Radio on June 3, 2012.
This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR.
Note that the first part of this recording has been lost.
Podcast: Download (8.5MB)
Posted in Early Christianity, podcast | 1 Comment »
by Bill Hamblin on August 31st, 2012
There he gives six reasons why he believes Mormons are not Christians. While I have enjoyed Professor Witherington’s biblical scholarship, I’m afraid his understanding of Mormonism is inadequate. I’ll examine each of his six claims. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Anti-Mormon critics, Early Christianity | 8 Comments »
by Kevin Barney on August 28th, 2012
So, over at Patheos Ben Witherington has a blog post titled “Why Mormonism Is Not Christianity–The Issue of Christology,” which you may read here. I’m familiar with Witherington from his articles in Biblical Archaeology Review (I’m a subscriber), which I generally enjoy. But I suppose it should come as no surprise that I thought this blog post was weak sauce.
In general I didn’t have too much of a problem with his catalog of differences between Evangelical and Mormon thought. It is true that Mormons reject an ontological Trinity (he poisons the well by characterizing this position as “polytheism”); it is true that Mormons believe in an embodied God (I wonder whether he realizes how many people historically he just kicked out of Christianity by making this a standard); guilty as charged on our rejection of biblical inerrancy.
But I was surprised at his lack of historical sense and sophistication. He portrays Mormonism as evolving, which is certainly true, but he is blind to the evolution of thought over the centuries in historical Christianity. He cites the historic policy of the priesthood ban, and while I personally think we deserve to take our lumps over that, he doesn’t seem to be aware that the original Mormon policy was an (unfortunate) importation of Protestant biblical thought into the Church (there is a case where if we had been a little less Christian in the 19th century we would have been better off!). He seems to think we are somehow dissembling by calling our meeting places “churches,” and he notes that we don’t have crosses gracing our buildings, apparently unaware of the largely Puritan, low church origins of our Church. As religious history, I was not impressed by his treatment.
He grants that many Catholics and Orthodox are Christian; I wonder how they feel about this supposed magnanimous judgment on his part. I can’t help but wonder whether Catholics and Orthodox might wonder who appointed him the arbiter of who qualifies to be reckoned a Christian. He also allows that many Mormons would pass the test of being decent and honest and loving human beings. Magnanimous indeed.
Here’s the thing. I know what he’s trying to say, and I actually agree with him. From his Evangelical perspective, being Christian is tantamount to being saved, and most Mormons are not saved according to Evangelical theology. I don’t have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is his throwing around the word “Christian” without bothering to define it, but just assuming his narrow Evangelical definition. Because out in the real world, that is not the way people understand the word “Christian.”
A christianos is a partisan of Christ, just as a Herodian was a partisan of Herod or a Caesarian was a partisan of Caesar. And that is the way the word is understood outside of the Evangelical bubble from within which Witherington is writing. To the person on the street, a Christian is someone who believes in Christ, that he is the Son of God, he lived and died, atoned for the sins of the world, the third day arose again, and dwells in yonder heavens at the right hand of the Father. For most of the world, Christian is a broad generic category of history and culture and belief, not a narrow club for the saved per Evangelical dogma.
Elsewhere I have shared the following (true) story, which illustrates well why simply calling Latter-day Saints non-Christian is inherently misleading. A family with several young daughters used to live in my ward. This family was friendly with a neighbor woman, who would often babysit the girls. As Christmas was approaching, the woman gave each of the girls a Christmas gift, which turned out to be a coloring book featuring Jesus Christ. The girls enjoyed the gift and colored the pictures.
Some time later this woman came to the family’s home, ashen, and apologized profusely for having given their daughters such a gift. It turns out that the woman had just learned at her church that Mormons are not Christian, and therefore she of course assumed that she had committed a grievous faux pas in giving the girls coloring books featuring a deity their family did not believe in.
Now in this story the woman understood the claim that Latter-day Saints are not Christian the same way the vast majority of people would, as meaning that they do not believe in Christ. This is because she naturally applied the public definition of the word to her pastor’s words, not some narrow, undisclosed private definition.
We can see by this story the mischief that results from the semantic legerdemain of calling Latter-day Saints non-Christian. The fact is, they are Christians in the generic sense of the word, even if, from an Evangelical point of view, they are theologically in error and unsaved (i.e., being a Christian is not necessarily tantamount to being right). I personally would have no difficulty with certain shorthand distinctions that would make clear that Mormons neither are nor claim to be creedal or orthodox Christians. But to say they are not Christians at all without such a modifier is to fundamentally misrepresent the nature of their beliefs.
Cross-posted at BCC
Posted in Early Christianity, Interfaith Dialogue | 3 Comments »
by SteveDensleyJr on July 4th, 2012
Can people really come back to life? What evidence is there for the resurrection of Christ? In this episode of Religion Today, which originally aired on KSL Radio on April 8, 2012, Martin Tanner discusses the reality of the resurrection and the hope that lies therein for all of us.
This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR.
Note that the first part of this recording has been lost.
Podcast: Download (8.9MB)
Posted in Early Christianity, podcast | 1 Comment »
by Trevor Holyoak on May 29th, 2012
Review of No Weapon Shall Prosper: New Light on Sensitive Issues
Edited by Robert L. Millett
Published by BYU Religious Studies Center and Deseret Book, 2011
Rather than focusing primarily on the methods commonly used by critics as other recent books of this genre do (such as Michael Ash’s Shaken Faith Syndrome, which I also highly recommend), this book contains essays that address some of the most common issues that are used to attack the faith of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is intended to help the reader gain a better understanding of these topics in a faith-promoting, but scholarly and honest environment, against the flood of misinformation available online today. Indeed, the editor notes that “The Internet is filled with thousands of pages of anti-Mormon polemic, and it is extremely difficult for people to receive an honest and fair appraisal of Mormonism without significant effort on their part” (page viii).
Besides those by the editor, Robert L. Millett, the book contains contributions by Daniel L. Belnap, J. Spencer Fluhman, Steven C. Harper, Brian M. Hauglid, Daniel K. Judd, Kerry Muhlestein, Ugo A. Perego, Brent L. Top, and John W. Welch. They are split into four categories: Restored Christianity, Latter-day Saint Church History, Scriptural Perspectives, and Doctrinal Teachings. The topics include what it means to be a Christian, the various accounts of the First Vision, the Smiths’ involvement in money-digging and the supernatural, the Kinderhook plates, Joseph Smith’s youngest plural wife, DNA and the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, and Jesus Christ and salvation, among many others. Many of the topics are written by experts in the area – for example, a population geneticist discusses DNA and the Book of Mormon, two Egyptologists discuss the Book of Abraham, and an editor of the Joseph Smith Papers tackles the subject of multiple versions of the First Vision. I would like to concentrate on a few topics of particular interest to me in order to give an idea of the overall book.
Kent P. Jackson’s cleverly titled “Are Christians Christians?” discusses what it means to be a Christian from the point of view of mainstream Christianity and where it came from. He examines statements from the Presbyterian and Methodist churches that declare us to be unchristian. He explains why their definition is unbiblical, and happily admits that we should not be included in it. “We, of all people, should not be offended that other churches consider our baptisms invalid and do not recognize the authority of our priesthood holders to officiate in their ordinances. Since the first days of our church’s history, we have denied the validity of the authority and ordinances of all other churches (see D&C 22). We concede that we are not members of the historic Christian church that includes our Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant brothers and sisters. But to consider us not Christians on issues of belief is another matter” (page 55). He then goes on to explain that our definition of the word Christian is scriptural (although we have no official statement of such), and that by that definition we would also include those of other faiths previously mentioned.
Steven C. Harper, an editor of the Joseph Smith Papers, wrote about the accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, saying it “may be the best documented theophany (vision of God) in history.” He finds the five different known accounts in eight statements (plus contemporary hearsay) to be “rich documentation” and “a good reason to believe him” rather than being evidence of an inconsistent and evolving story as others contend. (Page 63.) He describes how Fawn Brodie and Wesley Walters shaped the criticisms that are popular today, and did not reconsider their interpretations even when new evidence against them came to light. He points out that “those who share the skeptics’ assumptions will likely arrive at the same conclusions as the skeptics. But those who are open to the possibility that Joseph told the truth can discover other meanings from the same facts” (page 71).
Ugo A. Perego, who holds a PhD in genetics and biomolecular sciences, handles the question of whether DNA proves or disproves the Book of Mormon. He goes into great detail explaining how DNA is used in research, the current theories about migrations into the Americas, and describes the various theories for and against the Book of Mormon based on available DNA evidence. He points out the problems with each of these theories (such as evidence showing up in the wrong time period, wrong assumptions being used, and misunderstandings of the limitations of DNA research) and arrives at the conclusion that DNA evidence can neither be used to prove nor disprove that the people in the Book of Mormon actually existed. (In fact, he points out that it can’t even be used to prove that Jesus existed.) He says that “I find no difficulties in reconciling my scientific passion about Native American history with my religious beliefs. I am not looking for a personal testimony of the Book of Mormon in the double helix. …Anyone using DNA to ascertain the accuracy of historical events of a religious nature – which require instead a component of faith – will be sorely disappointed” (page 208).
One of the essays on the Book of Abraham is by Kerry Muhlestein, who has a PhD in Egyptology from UCLA. He begins by explaining how he got interested in the Book of Abraham, and why Egyptologists outside the church dismiss it. He also found that many members of the church who struggle with the issues involved with the Book of Abraham aren’t looking for an excuse to leave the church, but have “encountered well-written (though not necessarily well-documented or researched) arguments…and did not know how to answer the questions posed by these arguments.” He found that those publishing critical information are generally unaware that it is “based on incorrect information and bad assumptions. They are misled by the mistakes, lies, and trash put out by a few, and they unwittingly pass the information along without really looking into their sources” (page 219).
He then goes on to debunk some of the misinformation, such as the idea that there was no human sacrifice in ancient Egypt. He also found that one of the words supposedly made up by Joseph Smith (Olishem) has been discovered in two ancient texts. He discovered that Egyptians had access to biblical stories by 200 BC (which was the right time period for the papyri), and were particularly interested in Abraham. He presented this information to a conference put on by the Russian Academy of Science and received positive reviews. He talks about evidence that what we actually have possession of today was a very small part of what Joseph had, and gives reasons why it likely was not the source of the Book of Abraham, other than Facsimile 1. He also briefly discusses the mystery of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, which were not likely to have been used in the translation process, as some critics have claimed. Another important point he makes is that “written by his own hand, upon papyrus” does not mean that the actual papyrus we have was written by the hand of Abraham, but that it is a copy of the original that Abraham would have written on much earlier. He also devotes several pages to Facsimile 1, pointing out many evidences (and some possible theories) for the authenticity of the interpretations provided by Joseph Smith.
Overall, I thought the book was quite good, although some essays were better than others. Some of the more doctrinal ones, in particular, presented a few points as given that not all members would agree on. But such is the nature of Mormonism. The book could be used to answer questions for oneself, to help a member friend or an investigator, or for inoculation against misinformation and half-truths encountered in a hostile environment. It would be useful reading for those preparing to serve a mission, for families, and for any individual interested in learning more about these issues or defending the church.
This book is available at the FAIR bookstore here.
Posted in Apologetics, Book of Mormon, Book reviews, Doctrine, Early Christianity, Joseph Smith, LDS History, Polygamy, Science | 1 Comment »
by SteveDensleyJr on May 23rd, 2012
Martin Tanner discuss the reasons why some say that Mormons are not Christian and provides a response to these contentions in this episode of Religion Today that originally aired on February 12, 2012.
This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR.
Podcast: Download (9.2MB)
Posted in Anti-Mormon critics, Early Christianity, podcast | 7 Comments »
by SteveDensleyJr on March 21st, 2012
In this episode of Religion Today that originally aired on March 18, 2012, Martin Tanner and Steve Densley, Jr. of FAIR discuss the recent controversy regarding the practice of baptisms for the dead as practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. How did this controversy arise? Why do Mormons perform this ordinance? Were baptisms for the dead really practiced in the ancient Church? These and other topics are discussed.
This recording was used by permission of KSL Radio and does not necessarily represent the views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or of FAIR.
Podcast: Download (9.1MB)
Posted in Early Christianity, LDS History, podcast | 1 Comment »
