Array

Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Becoming Gods: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary
 
(169 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{draft}}
{{Main Page}}  


{{AuthorsDisclaimer}}
{{To learn more box:responses to: Richard Abanes}}
 
{{H2
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Becoming Gods
|H=Response to "Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism"
|S=NOTE: This book was re-issued in 2007 under the title "Inside Today's Mormonism."
|T=Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism
|A=Richard Abanes
|>=[[One Nation Under Gods]]
}}
{{ChartBecomingGodsSummary}}
<onlyinclude>
{{H2
|L=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Becoming Gods
|H=Response to claims made in ''Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism'' by Richard Abanes
|S=This book could best be described as an Evangelical apologetic work against Mormonism. The book spends much time refuting LDS interpretation of scriptural passages in the Bible, often claiming that Mormons have misinterpreted the scriptures and that they require "deeper study." In fact, it is claimed that LDS scholars have only a superficial knowledge of the scriptures, at one time stating that "[p]roperly interpreting them is not as simple as reading today's newspaper"
|L1=Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Preface: Can't We All Just Get Along?"
|L2=Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Chapter 1: God's Latter-Day Prophet"
|L3=Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Chapter 2: And it Came to Pass"
|L4=Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Chapter 3: Thus Saith Joseph"
|L5=Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Chapter 4: One God Versus Many Gods"
|L6=Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Chapter 5: Heavenly Father is a Man"
|L7=Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Chapter 6: Siblings from Eternity Past"
|L8=Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Chapter 7: After All We Can Do"
|L9=Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Chapter 8: Ye Are Gods"
|L10=Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Chapter 9: More Than One Wife"
|L11=Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Chapter 10: The 'Christian' Question"
}}
</onlyinclude>
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Becoming Gods/Preface}}
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Becoming Gods/Chapter 1}}
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Becoming Gods/Chapter 2}}
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Becoming Gods/Chapter 3}}
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Becoming Gods/Chapter 4}}
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Becoming Gods/Chapter 5}}
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Becoming Gods/Chapter 6}}
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Becoming Gods/Chapter 7}}
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Becoming Gods/Chapter 8}}
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Becoming Gods/Chapter 9}}
{{:Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Becoming Gods/Chapter 10}}
 
</onlyinclude>
{{SummaryItem
|link=Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Becoming Gods/Use of sources
|subject=Use of sources
|summary=An examination and response to how the author of ''Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism'' interprets the sources used to support this work, indexed by page number.
}}
</onlyinclude>


==About this work==
==About this work==
{{Epigraph|There are no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibly interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writings.<br>&mdash;Paul Mosser and Carl Owen, "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" ''Trinity Journal'', 1998.}}


Author: Richard Abanes
It is claimed that this book is an attempt to fill the void highlighted by Mosser and Owen. Unfortunately, what we find instead are the same misrepresentations and arguments that been offered in the past by anti-Mormon authors. There is nothing at all new here. This book could best be described as an Evangelical apologetic work against Mormonism. The book spends much time refuting LDS interpretation of scriptural passages in the Bible, often claiming that Mormons have misinterpreted the scriptures and that they require "deeper study." In fact, it is claimed that LDS scholars have only a superficial knowledge of the scriptures, at one time stating that "[p]roperly interpreting them is not as simple as reading today's newspaper" (p. 213).


===Notable and Quotable===
===Notable and Quotable===
A summary of the painful manipulations required in order to circumscribe the meaning of the term "Christian" so that it excludes Latter-day Saints:


:''Many evangelical books offer little help. Some are strident or mocking.''
:''Many evangelical books offer little help. Some are strident or mocking.''
Line 15: Line 65:
:&mdash;Richard Abanes, ''Becoming Gods'', p. 265
:&mdash;Richard Abanes, ''Becoming Gods'', p. 265


:''This does not mean that Mormons are "Christian" in an objective theological sense. It merely means there exists no other category in which they can be placed. Allowing for the broad viewpoint, however, opens up a large can of worms. What about the Branch Davidians, who called themselves "Christian" but stored illegal weapons, abused children, and murdered law enforcement officers? What about The Family, a "Christian" group that currently engages in premaritial "sharing" with multiple partners and allows adultery with consent? How about so-called "Christian" witches? There are also a significant number of liberal "Christians"...who deny the virgin birth, the deity of Jesus, and Christ's physical resurrection. And let us not forget "Christan" nudists.''
:''This does not mean that Mormons are "Christian" in an objective theological sense. It merely means there exists no other category in which they can be placed. Allowing for the broad viewpoint, however, opens up a large can of worms. What about the Branch Davidians, who called themselves "Christian" but stored illegal weapons, abused children, and murdered law enforcement officers? What about The Family, a "Christian" group that currently engages in premarital "sharing" with multiple partners and allows adultery with consent? How about so-called "Christian" witches? There are also a significant number of liberal "Christians"...who deny the virgin birth, the deity of Jesus, and Christ's physical resurrection. And let us not forget "Christian" nudists.''
:&mdash;Richard Abanes, ''Becoming Gods'', p. 265
:&mdash;Richard Abanes, ''Becoming Gods'', p. 265


Line 21: Line 71:
:&mdash;Richard Abanes, ''Becoming Gods'', p. 266
:&mdash;Richard Abanes, ''Becoming Gods'', p. 266


==Claims made in this work==
:''When it comes to whether or not Mormons are Christian, a simple yes or no answer will never do.''
*[[Becoming Gods/Index|Index to claims made in ''Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism'']].
:&mdash;Richard Abanes, ''Becoming Gods'', p. 279
 
==Quote mining, selective quotation and distortion==
{{QuoteDisclaimer}}
 
===Something to Consider===
This author places most of his references and comments at the end of the book. This requires a tedious process of looking up each citation at the end of the book by those who wish to study the author's sources. This author, however, also uses the endnotes to provide information which ought to have been acknowledged in the main text. The average reader will not check the end notes&mdash;they will read the main text with its sensationalistic spin, without looking up the "rest of the story" in the endnote. Some examples this are provided in the following sections.
 
===Mormons believe in Celestial Sex?===
The author displays a disturbing preoccupation with what he constantly refers to as a "sexual union" between heavenly parents: He continually demonstrates this by inserting the word "sex" into descriptions of LDS beliefs which otherwise never mention the word.
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="5%"|Reference
!width="35%"|First the author says...
!width="35%"|The rest of the story...
!width="25%"|[[Use of sources]]
|-
|331 n.35
||Mormons often seek to distance themselves and their church from a problematic past comment of an LDS leader by ... narrowly splitting terms in order to focus on a minor issue while dismissing the broader point that is being made by a critic of the church.
||For example, I have often spoken of the LDS belief in eternal "Celestial Sex" (i.e. the process by which Mormons believe they will procreate spirit children in eternity with their spouses, see chapter 6). But this has brought LDS criticisms because the actual phrase "Celestial Sex" is not used by LDS leaders&mdash;'''even though sexual union is how many Mormons believe they will procreate in the Celestial Kingdom'''. {{ea}}
||
*A search of the endnotes of Chapter 6 shows no references to 1982 anti-Mormon film ''The God Makers'', from which the offensive term "Celestial Sex" originated.
|-
|392 n.14||...thanks to Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother&mdash;'''who, through some kind of sexual union''', "clothed" each of us with a spirit-body. {{ea}}
||Bruce R. McConkie, ''Mormon Doctrine'', p. 750. "Our spirit bodies had their beginning in pre-existence when we were born as the spirit children of God our Father. Through that birth process spirit element was organized into intelligent entities."
||
*The author quotes McConkie in the endnote, who never mentions anything about "sexual unions."
|-
|157||According to Brigham Young, our spirit body was created '''via a sexual union''' of Heavenly Father and Mother..."[God] created man, as we create our children," said Young, "[f]or there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be." {{ea}}
||"...So God created man in his own image. in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." I believe that the declaration made in these two scriptures is literally true. God has made His children like Himself to stand erect, and has endowed them with intelligence and power and dominion over all His works, and given them the same attributes which He Himself possesses. He created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be. As the Apostle Paul has expressed it, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being." "Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art or man's device." There exist fixed laws and regulations by which the elements are fashioned to fulfill their destiny in all the varied kingdoms and orders of creation, and this process of creation is from everlasting to everlasting. Jesus Christ is known in the scriptures as the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and it is written of Him as being the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of His person. The word image we understand in the same sense as we do the word in the 3rd verse of the 5th chapter of Genesis, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image."
||
*Brigham Young, ''Journal of Discourses'' 11:123.
*Does Brigham sound like he is talking about sex? He is talking about how God created man "in his own image." The author ought to do a better job of keeping his mind from slipping into the gutter.
|}
'''Commentary'''
*The author speaks of the "LDS belief in 'Celestial Sex'" and "sexual union" between Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother as a fact, yet this characterization is abhorrent and offensive to Latter-day Saints. The author continues by stating that "sexual union is how many Mormons believe they will procreate in the Celestial Kingdom." We challenge the author to provide support for this assertion. Latter-day Saints do not know the process by which spirit children are created.
*It is ironic that the author uses this as an example of Mormons "splitting terms" while "dismissing the broader point" raised by critics. The ''broader point'' is that LDS believe that they will be able to have spirit children if they achieve exaltation. The ''narrow point'' is the assignment of the ugly and offensive term "Celestial Sex" to this process&mdash;a term coined by Ed Decker in the 1982 anti-Mormon film [[The God Makers|''The God Makers'']].
{{parabreak}}
 
===Comparing population sizes at the beginning and end of a 1000-year period?===
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="5%"|Reference
!width="35%"|First the author says...
!width="35%"|The author then concludes...
!width="25%"|[[Use of sources]]
|-
|p. 69-70
||'''"LDS apologists and BYU professors are advocating''' a new ''unofficial'' opinion that Lehi and his people represented only a ''' 'small band' ''' of Israelites, compared to a larger population of indigenous people in the New world."
||"'''But according to Mormon 1:7''' in the Book of Mormon, '''the Nephite and Lamanite populations were hardly small''': "The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea [about A.D. 322]."
||*Jeffrey Meldrum, "The Children of Lehi: DNA and the ''Book of Mormon'', lecture at the 2003 FAIR Conference, aug. 8, 2003.
|}
'''Commentary'''
*The author seems to believe that the proposition that Lehi's small group intermingled with a larger population of Native Americans in approximately 600 B.C. is somehow contradicted and invalidated by the fact that the population was as numerous as "the sand of the sea" in A.D. 322, ''almost 1000 years later''. The logic behind this comparison is elusive. If anything, the idea that Lehi's group mingled with an existing population ''supports'' the idea that they would become quite numerous over a long period of time.
{{parabreak}}
 
===The Book of Commandments was printed?===
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="5%"|Reference
!width="35%"|The author says...
!width="35%"|What the author puts in the endnotes...
!width="25%"|[[Use of sources]]
|-
|p. 84
||[The revelations] were subsequently arranged, edited by Smith for accuracy, then printed as ''A Book of Commandments (1833)''. But '''because very few copies of the ''Book of Commandments'' were produced, it remained unavailable to most Mormons'''. So in 1835 LDS leaders republished the revelations. But by that time the declarations were showing their age. Many contained outdated information. Some included erroneous statements. Others presented abandoned doctrines. A few of the revelations simply revealed too much information about LDS beliefs... {{ea}}
||(p. 370 n.9)The press that printed the sheets of revelations was destroyed by an anti-Mormon mob. The sheets, scattered in the streets, were gathered up and assembled into a 160-page book.
||
*Joseph Smith's diary, Dec. 1, 1832, "[I] wrote and corrected revelations &c."
*Dean Jessee, PJS, vol. 2, p. 4
|}
'''Commentary'''
*The author's tendency to spin a statement in the main text and then provide crucial clarification in the endnotes at the back of the book is on display here. In the main text, the author makes it appear as if the ''Book of Commandments'' was successfully printed and distributed, but that it was unavailable to most Church members because there were "very few copies." Then, just ''two years'' later, the revelations were supposed to be "showing their age" for a variety of reasons.
*See also: [[Doctrine and Covenants textual changes]]
{{parabreak}}
 
===Argument from silence?===
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="5%"|Reference
!width="35%"|The author says...
!width="35%"|And then the author says...
!width="25%"|[[Use of sources]]
|-
|90||LDS apologist Stephen Gibson reasons, "Since we don't have the original manuscripts used for the book of the Bible, nor do we have record of their writing processes, critics cannot claim that Biblical prophets never revised nor added to their revelations." '''But this type of reasoning is known as an "argument from silence."''' It is actually meaningless because arguments from silence can be used to prove nearly anything. {{ea}}
||(p. 101) Eleven pages after implying the LDS are "arguing from silence," the author then states the following:
 
"Orson Pratt alluded to this idea, arguing that the wisdom of man may certainly not alter revelations, but "[i]f they need altering, God alone has the right to alter them, or to add to them." Pratt then referred to the case of the prophet Jeremiah, whose revelation was burned by the king of Judah. Afterward "Jeremiah was commanded to write all the words again, and there were added besides unto them many like words."
||
*Orson Pratt, "Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon&mdash;no.1, 1850," pp. 4-5. Reprinted in Orson Pratt, ''Orson Pratt's Works'', vol. 2.
*{{s||Jeremiah|36|32}}
|}
'''Commentary'''
*It seems odd for the author to argue that LDS have no response to support the idea that revelations may be altered by the prophet that gave them, yet later provide that very LDS response and spend time refuting it. It seems that Orson Pratt was not "silent" in his ability to provide Biblical support for his position.
{{parabreak}}
 
==="Son of Man" or "son of ''a'' man?"===
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="5%"|Reference
!width="35%"|The author says...
!width="35%"|The rest of the story...
!width="25%"|[[Use of sources]]
|-
|149||Now concerning the title "Son of Man," there are several ways to interpret this phrase. But none of them imply that God the Father is a man. One might notice, for instance, that '''contrary to what Mormons may assert''', the phrase does not say "son of ''a'' man." There are no indefinite articles in the Greek. Each instance simply reads, "Son of Man."
||The author implies through the construction of his text that Mormons believe that the title "Son of Man" actually means "son of ''a'' man." (bold emphasis added)
||
*No source is provided by the author to support his assertion and implication that LDS reinterpret the title "Son of Man" as "son of a man."
|}
'''Commentary'''
*This appears to be a bit of "sleight-of-hand" by the author. Latter-day Saints accept "Son of Man" as a messianic title, and do not attempt to reinterpret or alter it.
{{parabreak}}
 
===Latter-day Saints should be excluded from being called "Christian?"===
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="5%"|Reference
!width="35%"|The author says...
!width="35%"|What does he mean?
!width="25%"|[[Use of sources]]
|-
|265||
This does not mean that Mormons are "Christian" in an objective theological sense. It merely means there exists no other category in which they can be placed. Allowing for the broad viewpoint, however, opens up a large can of worms. What about the Branch Davidians, who called themselves "Christian" but stored illegal weapons, abused children, and murdered law enforcement officers? What about The Family, a "Christian" group that currently engages in premaritial "sharing" with multiple partners and allows adultery with consent? How about so-called "Christian" witches? There are also a significant number of liberal "Christian"...who deny the virgin birth, the deity of Jesus, and Christ's physical resurrection. And let us not forget "Christan" nudists.
||So, lets examine the author's criteria for disallowing the "broad definition" of the term "Christian:"
*Storing illegal weapons
*Abusing children
*Murdering law enforcement officers
*Pre-maritial sharing partners and consentual adultery
*Witches
*Denial of the virgin birth
*Denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ
*Denail of the resurrection of Jesus Christ
*Nudists
||The author uses a variety of sources related to the various groups mentioned.
|}
'''Commentary'''
*The author creates a "laundry list" of groups and their abhorrent practices in order argue ''against'' the application of the term "Christian" to Latter-day Saints. Examining this list closely&mdash;are ''any'' of these things taught, advocated or practiced by Latter-day Saints? ''This'' is the category into which the author wishes to assign Latter-day Saints? Such a comparison and its use as justification for denying the use of the term "Christian" to Latter-day Saints is insulting.
{{parabreak}}
 
==Fictional conversations with LDS believers==
The author uses an interesting (and annoying) method of illustrating his point at the beginning of many of his chapters. He recounts dialogues that he claims that he had with "friends" who were LDS. This method, of course, allows the author to define the LDS responses to conform to the point that he is trying to make. Latter-day Saints who read these dialogues would certainly not entirely agree with what the "LDS believer" says. Some of these conversations are reminiscent of what one would see in old "Jack Chick" cartoon tracts.
 
===A Mormon missionary claims that the belief that Jesus paid for his sins is "not my faith?"===
{| valign="top" border="1" style="width:100%; font-size:85%"
!width="5%"|Page
!width="45%"|The "conversation"
!width="50%"|Commentary
|-
|177-178||A "conversation" between the author and a LDS missionary named "Steven."
*Author: "I know I'm going to heaven when I die...How about you?"
*Elder "Steve": "I hope...I hope that if I work hard enough, learn all I can learn, and do all I can do, then maybe Heavenly Father will grant me a place in the Celestial Kingdom&mdash;if I'm worthy."
*Author: "You&mdash;worthy of heaven?...Man, I can already tell you that's never going to happen."
*Elder "Steve": "Yeah, You're probably right."
*Author: "Seriously, how can you live like that? I mean, no one is worhty of eternal life. All you gotta do is look around to know that. The Bible says we're saved by grace, Steve. It's all God."
*Elder "Steve": "Yeah...well, the Book of Mormon says we're saved after all we can do."
*Author: "But how can you ever know if you've really done all you can do?"
*Elder "Steve": I guess I can't. Maybe that' why I'm so stressed all the time."
*Author: '''"That's why we need Jesus. He did it all for us. Paid the price for our sins. Cancelled out the debt against us. Opened up a way, free and clear, to eternal life."
*Elder "Steve": '''"That sounds nice. But that's not my faith."'''
*Author: "It could be."
*Elder "Steve": Hey, I thought I was the missionary here." {{ea}}
||
*Latter-day Saints certainly agree that they need Jesus, believe that He paid the price for our sins, cancelled out the debt against us and opened up the way to eternal life. Does the author actually think that we will believe that a LDS missionary claimed "that's not my faith?"
*The issue here is the phrase "free and clear."
*The author arranges his conversation so that it appears that the LDS missionary is ''denying the need for Christ''. This is a blatant manipulation on the part of the author.
|}
 
==Endnotes==
 
==Reviews of this work==


{{SpecificAuthorsAndWorks}}
:'''Appeals Court Rules Mormon Church Is Outside Protestant Christian Faith.''' ''This ruling clearly agrees that Mormonism is outside Protestantism. And Mormonism is certainly not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. The ruling, of course, fails to answer the question: What is Mormonism? Given the fact that it is not ''Roman Catholic'', or ''Eastern Orthodox'', or ''Protestant'', one can naturally extrapolate that Mormonism is not Christian.
:&mdash;Richard Abanes, blog post "Mormonism LEGALLY Declared Not Christian,"  October 9, 2008.
:(The following day, October 10, in response to a reader comment, the title of the blog entry was changed to read "Mormonism LEGALLY Declared Not Protestant." One poster compared the logic presented with the following: "And given the fact that San Diego is not Los Angeles, or San Francisco, or Sacramento, one can naturally extrapolate that San Diego is not in California.")

Latest revision as of 04:16, 12 May 2024


Learn more about responses to: Richard Abanes
Wiki links
Online
  • Craig L. Foster, "'Doing Violence to Journalistic Integrity (Review of ''Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of a Violent Faith by Jon Krakauer)'," FARMS Review 16/1 (2004). [149–174] link
  • Michael G. Reed, "Abanes's Revised History (Review of One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church)," FARMS Review 16/1 (2004). [99–110] link
Navigators


Response to "Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism"

Summary: NOTE: This book was re-issued in 2007 under the title "Inside Today's Mormonism."


Claim Evaluation
Becoming Gods

Response to claims made in Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism by Richard Abanes

Summary: This book could best be described as an Evangelical apologetic work against Mormonism. The book spends much time refuting LDS interpretation of scriptural passages in the Bible, often claiming that Mormons have misinterpreted the scriptures and that they require "deeper study." In fact, it is claimed that LDS scholars have only a superficial knowledge of the scriptures, at one time stating that "[p]roperly interpreting them is not as simple as reading today's newspaper"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Preface: Can't We All Just Get Along?"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Chapter 1: God's Latter-Day Prophet"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Chapter 2: And it Came to Pass"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Chapter 3: Thus Saith Joseph"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Chapter 4: One God Versus Many Gods"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Chapter 5: Heavenly Father is a Man"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Chapter 6: Siblings from Eternity Past"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Chapter 7: After All We Can Do"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Chapter 8: Ye Are Gods"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Chapter 9: More Than One Wife"


Jump to details:


Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Chapter 10: The 'Christian' Question"


Jump to details:


Use of sources

Summary: An examination and response to how the author of Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism interprets the sources used to support this work, indexed by page number.


About this work

There are no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibly interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writings.
—Paul Mosser and Carl Owen, "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" Trinity Journal, 1998.

It is claimed that this book is an attempt to fill the void highlighted by Mosser and Owen. Unfortunately, what we find instead are the same misrepresentations and arguments that been offered in the past by anti-Mormon authors. There is nothing at all new here. This book could best be described as an Evangelical apologetic work against Mormonism. The book spends much time refuting LDS interpretation of scriptural passages in the Bible, often claiming that Mormons have misinterpreted the scriptures and that they require "deeper study." In fact, it is claimed that LDS scholars have only a superficial knowledge of the scriptures, at one time stating that "[p]roperly interpreting them is not as simple as reading today's newspaper" (p. 213).

Notable and Quotable

A summary of the painful manipulations required in order to circumscribe the meaning of the term "Christian" so that it excludes Latter-day Saints:

Many evangelical books offer little help. Some are strident or mocking.
—Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods, p. 11
Mormons do in fact seek salvation within the historical person known to the world as Jesus of Nazareth, as they see him.
—Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods, p. 265
This does not mean that Mormons are "Christian" in an objective theological sense. It merely means there exists no other category in which they can be placed. Allowing for the broad viewpoint, however, opens up a large can of worms. What about the Branch Davidians, who called themselves "Christian" but stored illegal weapons, abused children, and murdered law enforcement officers? What about The Family, a "Christian" group that currently engages in premarital "sharing" with multiple partners and allows adultery with consent? How about so-called "Christian" witches? There are also a significant number of liberal "Christians"...who deny the virgin birth, the deity of Jesus, and Christ's physical resurrection. And let us not forget "Christian" nudists.
—Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods, p. 265
So if Daniel Peterson and Barry Bickmore, for example, have no problem being called "heretical Christians," then I have no problem obliging them.
—Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods, p. 266
When it comes to whether or not Mormons are Christian, a simple yes or no answer will never do.
—Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods, p. 279
Appeals Court Rules Mormon Church Is Outside Protestant Christian Faith. This ruling clearly agrees that Mormonism is outside Protestantism. And Mormonism is certainly not Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. The ruling, of course, fails to answer the question: What is Mormonism? Given the fact that it is not Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant, one can naturally extrapolate that Mormonism is not Christian.
—Richard Abanes, blog post "Mormonism LEGALLY Declared Not Christian," October 9, 2008.
(The following day, October 10, in response to a reader comment, the title of the blog entry was changed to read "Mormonism LEGALLY Declared Not Protestant." One poster compared the logic presented with the following: "And given the fact that San Diego is not Los Angeles, or San Francisco, or Sacramento, one can naturally extrapolate that San Diego is not in California.")
Retrieved from "http://104.237.154.152/answers/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Becoming_Gods&oldid=257828"