Archive for category: Mormonism

There is simply no question in my mind that Joseph Smith did not expect his “work” to continue into the future. He left no meaningful mechanism for the continuance of that work in reference to its leadership, resulting in the initial split right after his death. But the immediate leadership of the group that went to Salt Lake came up

And the debate I referred to on temples: Wow, just saw the freeze frame for that one—wooohoo, 2004…height of my Jesse Ventura days.  Yikes.  Eighty pounds, 54,000 miles of cycling, nearly 3,000,000 meters of rowing ago.  Now I’m just a little kindly old goateed man, right?

Dr. Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, spoke to the faculty of Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah this morning.  Here is a transcript of his presentation.  Below I provide a few quotes that warmed my heart in light of the years and years of trips to Salt Lake City and ministry there during the General

My friend John Divito recently (2/4/12) had an article posted on the Gospel Coalition website, dealing with the LDS. Last time I checked, there were 62 comments, which has ended up in a back and forth. Skip the comments, and read the article here. John is a former Mormon, you can read (a fuller account of) his testimony here.

Here are the links to the series titled “Mormonism 101” that I posted 5 years ago. I hope these articles will be helpful to those dealing with this issue today as well. Mormonism 101: Badly Needed in our Culture Today Mormonism 101: The First Vision Continued Mormonism 101: More on the LDS Scripture’s View of God Mormonism 101 Continued Mormonism

I will be joining Paul Edwards tomorrow evening (from your perspective back there—for me, it will be 8am on Friday morning) on his talk show in Detroit (5:05pm) to discuss the brouhaha currently raging over Mormonism. Listen in!

   CNN posted a “religion” spot called “Explain It to Me: Mormonism” in which their religion editor explains Mormonism. Undoubtedly the fact that Mitt Romney is running for president again has ignited some interest in this “quintessential American religion.” However, anyone who has done any research into Mormonism, or truly understands the doctrinal differences between Mormonism and biblical Christianity, will recognize

One aspect of that scriptural heritage that Christianity cannot shake is the identification of several divine beings as gods (Gen 6:2, 4; Deut 32:43 ; Ps 29:1; 89:7; Ps 97:7, among dozens of others). There are even divine beings called the sons of God. Other literature is in agreement. In the Dead Sea Scrolls angels are repeatedly called gods

This is the ninth in a series of replies I am providing to a blog article (linked numerous times before) by Daniel McClellan. This has grown to proportions I never expected when I first decided to respond to it, but it remains my hope that it has value for those dealing with the new generation of Mormon apologists. Christianity, in

I here continue my response to Daniel McClellan’s April 8th article. I’ll now turn to his actual argument. I’m going to largely avoid addressing specific claims about Mormon beliefs that are brought up by James with varying degrees of accuracy only for shock value. Such rhetoric really doesn’t make a real point and doesn’t merit a response. Mr. McClellan’s words

I continue my response to Daniel McClellan’s blog post, found here. Please note that with this article I am breaking from the order of Mr. McClellan’s article. I will seek to respond to the material skipped in the next installment. I sincerely apologize for the sheer length of this single segment, but I am truly attempting to transcend the normal

Another consideration is the legitimacy of his criteria for defining Christianity for those who lived before the development of the specific doctrines he touts as foundational. There was no such thing as a Trinitarian prior to the fourth century CE. James may argue that it is biblical in origin, but no one prior to Nicea ever expressed the notion as

I am continuing with my response to LDS writer Daniel McClellan’s blog article from April 8, 2011, found here. I note as well that Mr. McClellan has already begun replying to me, resulting in a very, and I mean very, large amount of text. My intention is to finish this initial response, comment briefly on anything I find helpful or

Additionally, given that Christianity must be allowed to define itself (as James asserts), in any objective approach to the question, Mormonism must be allowed to participate in that process of definition. To preclude Mormonism from Christianity’s self-definition is, again, begging the question. It assumes the conclusion in setting up the premise. Would it be begging the

I have been responding to an article by Daniel O. McClellan regarding the status of Mormonism and its claims to be a Christian religion. I continue my response in this, the third part. These are peculiar fundamental defining issues, as every single one is a direct response to an ostensibly LDS ideology. If the above are the fundamental defining issues

In Response to Mr. McClellan I would like to respond point by point to Mr. McClellan’s claims in his article. I am uncertain as to the source of his familiarity with me, as we have, to my knowledge, never met, but it is possible that in modern Mormon homes, using someone’s first name, even if they are older than you

I was recently referred to a blog article by a young Mormon writer and scholar, Daniel McClellan. He seems like a bright, intelligent young man, though, sadly, he has clearly been influenced by the less-than-mature behavioral ticks of his mentors at BYU, men like Daniel C. Peterson and William Hamblin. We will note how this mars his otherwise interesting article