Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101/Chapter 1

A FAIR Analysis of: Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Mormonism 101 A work by author: Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson

A review of Chapter: "God the Father"

Mormonism 101, although claiming to be a basic overview of LDS theology, misrepresents LDS doctrine in an attempt to condemn the Latter-day Saints as unchristian.

The fallacies of the author's logic leap out from the opening paragraphs of the chapter:

Men with keen intelligence got together ... [at] Nicea and created a God. They did not pray for wisdom or revelation. They claimed no revelation from the Lord. They made it just about like a political party would do, and out of their own mortal minds created a God which is still worshiped by the great majority of Christians.
President Spencer W. Kimball,
Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 426.

If the above quote from Mormonism's twelfth president is correct, then the God proclaimed by the Mormon Church is not the same God who is worshiped by millions of Christians today. Few would debate that the concept of God is paramount in any belief system. If two people hope to consider themselves of the same faith, they need to agree on their definition of the Almighty God. If they cannot agree on this vital point, they would be deceiving themselves and others to say that their faiths are the same.

Despite Kimball's claim, many laypeople in the Mormon Church insist that the God they worship is the same God worshiped by millions of Christians throughout the world. The problem with this assumption is that it does not concur with many statements made by the LDS leadership.^[1]

The authors' first fallacy is the use of ambiguous terminology. They wish to confuse a differing understanding of who God is with worshipping another god altogether. To understand the tactic used by the authors, consider the city of Cleveland, Ohio. One of the historical black marks against the city was the pollution quite evident in Lake Erie. Cleveland certainly became a different city once the lake was cleaned up. By the reasoning of the authors, one would conclude that Cleveland, Ohio became Cleveland, Tennessee once Lake Erie was cleaned up.

Secondly, the authors beg the question by assuming that doctrines first canonized in the Nicene and related creeds (with which President Kimball profoundly disagreed) were entirely biblical. Leaving aside the truth or falsehood of those creeds, this reviewer has yet to read any biblical text that equates nonbelievers in the creeds with nonbelievers in Christ.

Some further problems with Mormonism 101:

The authors falsely assert,

"To be sure, historical Christianity has never advocated the belief in a tangible deity." ^[2] Is Jesus not God? ^[3] Did the Apostles and others not touch Him, after His resurrection? ^[4]

The authors quote from Joseph Smith's eulogy of Elder King Follett, yet they fail to mention Smith's quote of John 5:19, 26 where the Savior states that He can do nothing but what He saw His Father do. ^[5]

The authors compare their idea of LDS theology with the Evangelical doctrine of God's transcendence:

God is distinct from His creation and the universe. When discussing the transcendence of God, we need to consider a number of aspects. Not only is the 'person' of God unlike human beings, but His moral character is also unique. He is infinitely exalted above that He has ever created. ^[6]

Leaving aside their straw man ^[7] implying that Latter-day Saints gainsay that God is infinitely exalted above any and all mortal humans, they ignore the Book of Genesis, which states that man is created in God's image. ^[8] Is it logical to think that man has zero in common with the Creator who chose to make mankind in His image?

The authors implicitly criticize President Gordon Hinckley's quote of Lorenzo Snow's couplet. By this, they ignore I John 3:1-3. Do the authors disbelieve that Christians will be like Jesus?

The authors disdain alleged LDS disbelief in God's omnipotence. Can God lie? If not, then He is not omnipotent. If He can, why are there scriptures that state that He cannot? ^[9] It is only in this sense that members of the Church disbelieve God's absolute omnipotence. Members of the LDS Church do not question whether God is mighty enough to create the universe, or to effect the Atonement.

The authors ask if it is the Church's position that God did not know whether Adam and Eve would transgress His commandment. ^[10] Such a question rather ridiculous, since the Evangelical interpretation of the biblical text implies that the Atonement of Jesus Christ was an afterthought to undo the ill effects of Adam's sin. ^[11] The LDS position, most succinctly stated in the Pearl of Great Price, is that God counseled with His spirit children concerning the plan and that Jesus Christ's Atonement is not "Plan B." ^[12]

Endnotes

1. [note] Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, Mormonism 101 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 23-24.
2. [note] Mormonism 101, 25.
3. [note] See, for example, John 1꞉1-3.
4. [note] See Luke 24꞉36-39.
5. [note] Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City; Deseret Book Company, 1976), 346.
6. [note] Mormonism 101, 32.
7. [note] A "straw man" is a false weak argument built up by an author, which is subsequently torn down. Upon tearing it down, the author implies that not only was the false weak argument destroyed, but also the original argument.
8. [note] See Genesis 1꞉27.
9. [note] See Titus 1꞉2.
10. [note] Mormonism 101, 28
11. [note] John F. MacArthur, Jr., The Vanishing Conscience; Drawing the Line in a No-Fault, Guilt-Free World (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995), 109-115.
12. [note] See Moses 4 and Abraham 3.