? for TBMs. Best and worst arguments against the church?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

As an inactive critic, I find a lot of arguments against the church convincing, and I also find some silly. Some, if not most, of the "anti-mormon" arguments have apologetic defenses that are effective, in that they are satisfactory to a majority of so called TBMs. Which issue or issues do you find to be the most difficult to defend? And which issues do you find to be the easiest to defend?

in my opinion, I think the Book of Abraham is the most damning evidence against the church, but the church has offered good enough apologetics to satisfy most TBMs. Plus, it's an issue that requires a surface understanding of Egyptology, so it tends to confuse people more than do damage to the church.

If I was a church apologist I think the most difficult issue to defend is the abundance of Christianity in the Book of Mormon. Forget elephants, steel, barley, etc. Those are peripheral concerns. They aren't central to the book. You can change Horses to tapirs, steel to wood, etc. and it works. But Christianity is an anachronism that cannot be easily dismissed. You can't change Jesus Christ to Juan Gonzales without completely altering the meaning of the book. There are two issues. First, the abundance of the name Jesus Christ and Christian concepts in the Book of Mormon between 600BC and 0 AD. This is an anachronism. The Old Testament talks of a Messiah, but doesn't know his exact name. Organized Christianity as described in the Book of Mormon didn't exist until hundreds of years after Christ's death, yet the Book of Mormon has a large Christian society in 500 BC. The other issue is the complete 100% conversion of everyone throughout the land when Christ visited the Americas. Everyone converted to Christianity, was baptized, loved on another, no wars or contentions, churches dotted the land from sea to sea like sands on the beach. This lasted for about 300 years. Yet no evidence of Pre-Columbian Christianity anywhere in the America exists today. This is a much bigger issue than pre-columbian horses, or steel. This gets right to the heart of the Book of Mormon, and there's just nothing there.

For me, the easist issue to defend, and the silliest argument from critics, is the fact that Joseph Smith defended himself with a gun at Carthage jail. So what? Some critics point out that he is supposedly a "martyr" and he was supposed to go like a lamb to the slaughter, but in my opinion those were things written after the fact to make him more of a hero. He was arrested and put in jail and someone smuggled a gun in to him. He didn't use the gun to try to escape. The charges against Joseph Smith were legit, but he still had a right to due process. The mob was illegal, and he had every right to defend his life. Plus, he didn't sttart shooting until Hyrum was killed. I'd be pissed too if my brother was killed in front of me. So I have to defend Joseph Smith's actions right before his death. He did what any other man would do. Plus, I think Joseph would have eventually driven the church into the ground if he hadn't been killed. He was getting nuttier and nuttier, and church doctrine was getting more and more crazy. He may have been as successful as Brigham Young, or it may have ended in disaster, like Jim Jones, but unfortunately we will never know because of that damn mob.

So those are my best and worst cases against the church.

[Analytics]

The hardest issue to defend is the atonement, but if that falls, so does all of Christianity. I mean let's face it, how on earth can someone take the punishment for someone else and somehow consider that to satisfy justice. If God paid for the window I broke with my baseball, that'd be one thing, but standing in for me after I committed treason is something else entirely.

The easiest issue to defend is the usage of "adieu" in the Book of Mormon. Puhleeze.

[_Fortigurn]

The hardest issue to defend is the atonement, but if that falls, so does all of Christianity. I mean let's face it, how on earth can someone take the punishment for someone else and somehow consider that to satisfy justice. If God were paid for the window I broke with my baseball, that'd be one thing, but standing in for me after I committed treason is something else entirely.

That's actually not a problem for the many Christians who don't believe in the penal substitution theory of the atonement (a 10th century invention).

[_asbestosman]

That's actually not a problem for the many Christians who don't believe in the penal substitution theory of the atonement (a 10th century invention).

I'm curious. What do other Christians beleive the atonement was for then? I'm pretty sure Paul laid it out in his epistle to the Hebrews (or if Hebrews wasn't written by Paul, then someone quite like Paul).

[_CaliforniaKid]

The atonement is indeed a pretty rough thing to defend. The very idea that God's wrath has to be appeased by a blood sacrifice is totally offensive. I think the best answer lies in the concept of accomodation, as elucidated by the Early Church Fathers (documented at great length by Stephen Benin in his little-known book The Footprints of God).

I agree that the Book of Abraham is the hardest issue for apologists to explain away. Although Joseph's secret polygamy dealings in Nauvoo (and accompanying denials) aren't easy either. Probably the easiest issues are piddly things like adieu and the land of Jerusalem.

[_Fortigurn]

I'm curious. What do other Christians beleive the atonement was for then?

Simple. Jesus did not die to satisfy God’s anger, he lived a holy life and died in obedience to God, to prick our conscience that we might repent and follow his example of loving and willing service, to become part of God’s family in Christ (Matthew 9:13, John 3:16-18; 13:15, Romans 5:8, 10; 8:32, 1Corinthians 11:1, 2 Corinthians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:2, Philippians 2:5, 1 Timothy 1:15-16, 2 Peter 2:21-25, 1 John 2:6; 3:16; 4:9-10, 19).

This is called the 'Participatory' model of the atonement, supported in the Old and New Testaments, found among some of the Early Fathers, taught by various Christians throughout Christian history (see Joseph Priestley for an example), and has over the last 10 years or so been enjoying resurgence of popularity among contemporary Christians.

The doctrine of the trinity is a stumblingblock to this model, because the trinity is defended these days with the penal substitution of Christ (if Christ wasn't God, he couldn't pay the price God demanded for the sins of all men). The doctrine of salvation by 'faith alone' is also a stumblingblock to this model, because it denies that participation in the sufferings of Christ (obedience to God), is part of the salvic process. This is why the participatory model isn't popular today.

I'm pretty sure Paul laid it out in his epistle to the Hebrews (or if Hebrews wasn't written by Paul, then someone quite like Paul).

Yes, and he said nothing about Christ dying to appease the wrath of God. You will find that he consistently teaches that men were reconciled to God, not that God was reconciled to man.

The atonement is indeed a pretty rough thing to defend. The very idea that God's wrath has to be appeased by a blood sacrifice is totally offensive.

I quite agree.

I think the best answer lies in the concept of accomodation, as elucidated by the Early Church Fathers (documented at great length by Stephen Benin in his little-known book The Footprints of God).

A number of the Early Fathers had very good explanations of the atonement, which are far superior to those in mainstream Christianity today. It should be a matter of interest to you that the penal substitution theory didn't come along until the 10th century.

[_gramps]

I'm curious. What do other Christians beleive the atonement was for then?

Simple. Jesus did not die to satisfy God’s anger, he lived a holy life and died in obedience to God, to prick our conscience that we might repent and follow his example of loving and willing service, to become part of God’s family in Christ (Matthew 9:13, John 3:16-18; 13:15, Romans 5:8, 10; 8:32, 1Corinthians 11:1, 2 Corinthians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:2, Philippians 2:5, 1 Timothy 1:15-16, 2 Peter 2:21-25, 1 John 2:6; 3:16; 4:9-10, 19).

This is called the 'Participatory' model of the atonement, supported in the Old and New Testaments, found among some of the Early Fathers, taught by various Christians throughout Christian history (see Joseph Priestley for an example), and has over the last 10 years or so been enjoying resurgence of popularity among contemporary Christians.

The doctrine of the trinity is a stumblingblock to this model, because the trinity is defended these days with the penal substitution of Christ (if Christ wasn't God, he couldn't pay the price God demanded for the sins of all men). The doctrine of salvation by 'faith alone' is also a stumblingblock to this model, because it denies that participation in the sufferings of Christ (obedience to God), is part of the salvic process. This is why the participatory model isn't popular today.

I'm pretty sure Paul laid it out in his epistle to the Hebrews (or if Hebrews wasn't written by Paul, then someone quite like Paul).

Yes, and he said nothing about Christ dying to appease the wrath of God. You will find that he consistently teaches that men were reconciled to God, not that God was reconciled to man.

The atonement is indeed a pretty rough thing to defend. The very idea that God's wrath has to be appeased by a blood sacrifice is totally offensive.

I quite agree.

I think the best answer lies in the concept of accomodation, as elucidated by the Early Church Fathers (documented at great length by Stephen Benin in his little-known book The Footprints of God).

A number of the Early Fathers had very good explanations of the atonement, which are far superior to those in mainstream Christianity today. It should be a matter of interest to you that the penal substitution theory didn't come along until the 10th century.

I like the idea of the participatory model. But, if I understand correctly, such a model wouldn't cover all the bases in Mormon theory, would it?

As I understand it, the earth fell, as well as, man. It's as though, when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit, the universe was subject to some kind of metaphysical warp, if you will, that could only be undone through the atonement of Christ.

It seems the participatory model only covers man's relationship to God, but not the rest of the universe (or at least the earth.)

I know that some writers in Mormon thought wouldn't go this far, but Joseph Fielding Smith and McConkie did, as well as, many others throughout the history of Mormonism. That is why even the earth needed to be baptised (through the flood and why it was necessary that the flood be universal.)

Now, if one is much more liberal in their interpretation of the Bible, then the participatory theory makes sense, assuming one considers the Adam and Eve story to be merely allegory.

However, one question for those who find the participatory model to be satisfactory: Why wouldn't one be able to apply the same reasoning to any great teacher who pricks them to living a higher life; in fact, living in obedience to higher principles? In other words, what really makes Christ, Christ?

Is Gandhi a type of Christ figure? the Buddha? or Mother Teresa, for that matter? I guess one could go so far as considering, for example, Martin Luther King, Jr., etc. as a type of Christ, assuming any one or more of these figures from history have pricked one's conscience into actually living higher principles, that is.

Help me out here!

I should also say that, Mormonism, if it dropped its literal interpretation of the creation story and other literalisms, could fit in well with the participatory theory. The problem is that those who are at the top aren't going in that direction. In the last 50 years or so, Mormon theology has become quite embarrassing. When Elder Packer, et. al. tries to explain the Atonement, I just cringe. The Atonement, as it has been explained over the pulpit, in the last 50 years or so, is very difficult, nigh impossible, to understand.

But, what can one do who is a Mormon and must follow people (and scripture, if read literally) who still believe Adam actually lived in Missouri, with his wife Eve (not so many years ago), and that when they ate the fruit (an apple?), the whole world fell from a celestial state to a telestial state? Then you really need to engage in some serious mental gymnastics to fit it all together. Evidenced by recent attempts over the pulpit, and through the Ensign, the Brethren are making quite a muddle of it all.

[_Fortigurn]

I like the idea of the participatory model. But, if I understand correctly, such a model wouldn't cover all the bases in Mormon theory, would it?

No, but I'm not a Mormon so that's not my problem.

As I understand it, the earth fell, as well as, man. It's as though, when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit, the universe was subject to some kind of metaphysical warp, if you will, that could only be undone through the atonement of Christ.

That's one of the standard 'orthodox' models, yes. To what extent it represents Mormon hamartiology, I don't know.

Now, if one is much more liberal in their interpretation of the Bible, then the participatory theory makes sense, assuming one considers the Adam and Eve story to be merely allegory.

You can keep Adam and Eve as literal people, and it still makes sense.

However, one question for those who find the participatory model to be satisfactory: Why wouldn't one be able to apply the same reasoning to any great teacher who pricks them to living a higher life; in fact, living in obedience to higher principles? In other words, what really makes Christ, Christ?

As a principle, you could certainly apply the same reasoning (great leaders inspire people to moral change). In Christ's case, what separates Christ from these other spiritual leaders is the specific commission which was his, and the specific way of life he inspires. I'm not inspired by Ghandi to love my neighbour as myself. I might be inspired to take political action through civil disobedience, but that's about it. I'm not inspired by Buddha to sacrifice myself for others, since he did no such thing. I might be inspired by Buddha to avoid stepping on ants, or to sit under trees more often, contemplating how useless and illusory my entire pointless life is.

Is Gandhi a type of Christ figure? the Buddha? or Mother Teresa, for that matter? I guess one could go so far as considering, for example, Martin Luther King, Jr., etc. as a type of Christ, assuming any one or more of these figures from history have pricked one's conscience into actually living higher principles, that is.

What these leaders show is that the principle of the participatory model is both realistic and actually works. It's just, it's spiritually elevated, it's morally inspiring, and it doesn't need to resort to legal loopholes or tricks to get people to compel people to obey. It reflects an intelligent and accurate understanding of the human psyche.

[_gramps]

Fortigurn wrote:

No, but I'm not a Mormon so that's not my problem.

And, neither am I. So, I guess we leave that to the likes of Ostler, Gazelam, et. al.

That's one of the standard 'orthodox' models, yes. To what extent it represents Mormon hamartiology, I don't know.

Well, I'm not sure there is a doctrine of anything in the Mormon church, yet alone a doctrine of sin. I guess, once again, it must be left to Ostler, et. al. to figure it out.

You can keep Adam and Eve as literal people, and it still makes sense.

Perhaps so.

As a principle, you could certainly apply the same reasoning (great leaders inspire people to moral change). In Christ's case, what separates Christ from these other spiritual leaders is the specific commission which was his, and the specific way of life he inspires. I'm not inspired by Ghandi to love my neighbour as myself. I might be inspired to take political action through civil disobedience, but that's about it. I'm not inspired by Buddha to sacrifice myself for others, since he did no such thing. I might be inspired by Buddha to avoid stepping on ants, or to sit under trees more often, contemplating how useless and illusory my entire pointless life is.

That is why I think a pantheon of Christ figures works well. One to help you better sit beneath trees and not step on ants. One to better inspire you towards political action through civil obedience, etc.

What these leaders show is that the principle of the participatory model is both realistic and actually works. It's just, it's spiritually elevated, it's morally inspiring, and it doesn't need to resort to legal loopholes or tricks to get people to compel people to obey. It reflects an intelligent and accurate understanding of the human psyche.

I agree that the principle works and "reflects... [an] accurate understanding of the human psyche," without the tricks and "legal loopholes."

[_Fortigurn]

That is why I think a pantheon of Christ figures works well. One to help you better sit beneath trees and not step on ants. One to better inspire you towards political action through civil obedience, etc.

Christ does it all for me. That's what sets him apart from the others in my view. There's nothing useless in his teaching.

I agree that the principle works and "reflects... [an] accurate understanding of the human psyche," without the tricks and "legal loopholes."

But only when properly applied.