In article <ofgLj.981$PJ3.332@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, anti-cult says...
>
>Basic beliefs of Mormons explained
>By Mike Licona
>NAMB, Director, Apologetics and Interfaith Evangelism
>Updated Monday, April 07, 2008
[snip]
>Mormon beliefs are fundamentally different from biblical
>Christianity.
That has got to be the understatement of the year!
>1. God. Once a human as we are now, and progressed to become God. He
>is one of many gods.
This should be really easy to refute. Isa 45:5-7 comes to mind. So does
Gen 1,
where God is in the beginning, and the _first_ man comes only later, in
1:26.
Perhaps they will quibble that Adam was not the first, but then it would
be time
to remind them that the very name 'Adam' means Man, the very name 'Eve'
means
"mother of all living things [people]". So the intent of Gen 1 should be
clear:
the creation of Adam is the creation of all Mankind. No room for YHWH to
be a
human person who became God.
>2. Man. Has the ability to progress and become a god just as Jehovah
>did.
>3. Marriage. Polygamy is no longer advocated, although it once was
>encouraged.
>4. Jesus. The son of God, but not part of the Godhead.
Again, this should be easy to refute: what kind of Son would God have if
not
God? This is difficult to refute only for people who already have an
inclination
to fail to embrace the Trinity.
> Mormons do not
>believe in the Trinity.
There's another great understatement;)
>Mormons are very sincere about their faith.
True, but so what? No one is handing out prizes for 'sincerity' in a wrong
faith. Christ hands out crowns for sincerity in the right faith, the faith
He
reveals to us.
>Conversations with Mormon
>missionaries promise to be cordial. Mormon scholars, such as those at
>Brigham Young University, are well aware of the challenges which face
>Mormonism.
>What do Mormons tell you when they visit?
>When Mormons visit you, they usually will not focus on the doctrines
>previously mentioned. In fact, they probably will not even bring them
>up during the first few meetings.
But if we bring them up, won't that discourage them from returning?
> Instead they will seek to find
>common ground with you on many of the doctrines Christians believe.
This is an old psychological trick, used by cultists and advertisers
alike: get
your victim to say 'yes' on the first proposition, and he is more likely
to say
'yes' to the next proposition, no matter how dubious it is.
A sad, but all too true characteristic of most people.
>For example, they may begin by saying that God revealed the Old
>Testament through Moses and the prophets.
That would be a good time to bring up Isa 45:5-7:
[so that you might know] that I am the LORD God, and that there is no god
other
than Me, and you did not know me; that they might know from the rising of
the
sun to the setting of the sun that there is none besides Me, I am the LORD
God
and there is no other, I am the one who makes light and creates darkness,
who
forms good and creates evils, the God who does all these things (Isa
45:5-7)
> Then Jesus came, was
>crucified and resurrected. His disciples wrote books and letters that
>became the New Testament. We all agree on these facts.
But the Mormons only _say_ they agree. But they do not agree with what the
Prohet Isaiah wrote, therefore, they do _not_ agree that "God revealed the
Old
Testament through Moses and the prophets."
>Then the differences begin. They will tell you that before Jesus'
>ascension into heaven, He appeared to the inhabitants of North America
>and gave them the gospel as well.
Then they do not agree with the Gospels, either. For the Gospels have him
first
appearing after His crucifixion to Mary Magdelene. It is pretty hard to
rationalize believing that He appeared to anyone else before that.
Indeed: it is only because people are not _familiar_ enough with the
Gospels
that they can fall for such rationalization.
> His message and the history of these
>inhabitants from 600 B.C. to A.D. 400 are recorded in the Book of
>Mormon.
>Furthermore, they will tell you that since the apostles were not
>replaced when they were killed, the Church went into apostasy.
This too, is hard to reconcile with the New Testament. There never _was_ a
command to replace the Apostles, who were distinguished by being
eyewitnesses of
the Lord, with other Apostles. How could there be? There were no other
eyewitnesses to replace them with after John died.
[snip]
>A. The Bible is reliable. Mormons claim that the Bible has been
>corrupted over the years as evidenced by the many different
>translations. How do we know that the Bible we have today is the same
>as it was 2,000 years ago? The original words of the Bible have been
>preserved with remarkable purity and that its accuracy has been
>confirmed by both history and archaeology.
What "history and archaeology" are _you_ referring to? Most history and
archaeology does not pretend to verify the accuracy of ancient texts. This
is
the topic of "textual criticism", NOT of history or archaeology.
BTW: textual critics are NOT unanimous in saying that "the Bible we have
today
is the same as it was 2,000 years ago". On the contrary: even Bruce
Metzger
wrote a glowing review of Bart Ehrman's book "The Orthodox Corruption of
Scripture".
You can guess from the title what Ehrman's opinion of that 'accuracy' is:(
>Variances among English
>translations do not call into question the preservation of the Bible
>over the years.
This is true. That is a really weak point in the Mormon's argument. But
those
variances _are_ confusing; that is why I made the decision years ago
_never_ to
rely on English translations. But not everyone has access to better
alternatives.
>Until you have shown this to a Mormon, it is useless
>to point out that some Mormon doctrines differ from the Bible. They
>will only respond that the Bible is unreliable.
And why do you think pointing this out to them will stop them? I can't see
why
it would.
>B. There is no archaeological confirmation of the Book of Mormon.
True. But there is no archaeological confirmation of Moses leading the
people
through Sinai either. So that is a weak argument. Why _would_ there be
archaeological evidence of Christ's visit to the New World?
[snip]
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
|
