Archive for category: Mormonism

The King Follett Discourse     It is quoted hundreds of times by LDS General Authorities in their sermons and books. So often is one section of it cited in Mormon history that even Stephen Robinson, a Mormon scholar who insists that critics of Mormonism stick to a narrow spectrum of official teachings of the Church, admits that this one statement

I have mentioned the fact that the person Paul Owen is in writing an article, for example, is not the person he is in “regular life” when interacting, especially, with those he considers non-scholars. The posting of the previous two articles, which I intended to be the end as far as my time currently allows, has led Owen to correct

But let us look at the specifics of this anti-apologetic, anti-evangelical position. First, Owen says Mormonism “allows” “certain heresies” in its system. No, Mormonism is based upon, and flows from, fundamental, foundational falsehoods, specifically, that God is an exalted man; that men can become Gods, and that God “became” a God through the eternal law of progression. These beliefs are

The letter came to my office via the CRI Journal. I had been asked to write an article for the journal on the apologetic errors of FARMS in the space of about 4800 words as I recall, and I did. The letter was from Paul Owen and Carl Mosser, two students at Talbot. I had never heard of either of

Roger Overton of Ambassadors for Christ received an e-mail this morning from Richard Mouw. Roger had quoted the line from my blog wherein Mouw says he believes Millet is believing in the Christ of the Bible for salvation. Mouw asked him to at least provide the context. Since Roger was quoting me, and then kindly himself provided the context, let’s

The Testimony of the Book of Abraham     Certainly the most unique section of LDS Scripture is found to be the Book of Abraham, contained in the Pearl of Great Price. This work, Translated from the papyrus, by Joseph Smith is allegedly A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.The writings

Michael Thomson, Sales Director of Eerdmans, has responded to Pastor Kinchen and Pastor Curlee regarding the Mouw/Millet LDS apologetics work (here is the blog entry). I would like to provide the response and interact with it.    You are moved to action in your anger but I wanted to state what the case was…from the publisher’s side.    First, the evangelical endorsements

Ironically, Denver Seminary professor Craig L. Blomberg (whose co-authored work with LDS scholar Stephen Robinson, How Wide the Divide? (IVP, 1997) opened the door, I believe, to this new work, but itself was severely flawed on many levels–I wrote the summary review of the work for the CRI Journal) has written the following endorsement for the new Eerdmans LDS apologetics

Mormonism is not Christianity. It is fundamentally different. While it differs in hundreds of minor details, what is most important to us is that it differs in the most definitional and fundamentalaspects from the Christian faith. Christianity worships one God. Christianity knows that there is one God who has eternally been God and is the Creator of all things exhaustively.

As I look around my office I see literally hundreds of volumes produced by the venerable old Christian publishing house, Eerdmans. Many of my best resources bear that name on the spine. And I truly wonder what the founders of that company would think about its newest book. Robert Millet is the Richard L. Evans Professor of Religious Understanding and

I used the term “enclave” instead of “conclave” real late last night, and just got a note from William Hamblin of BYU pointing out my error. It is so nice to know I am kept to such a high standard by so many. He also informed me he read Scripture Alone. Rather random note, to be sure. Glad to hear

I flew back from London last night…I think. Hard to know what time it is, what day it is, etc., at the moment. I took a quick run out to the Mesa Easter Pageant just to say hello. This is the first year since 1984 that I haven’t been there every night (with the exception of those few years where

Gotta give the ol’ KJV credit. It tripped up the leaders of the LDS Church, way back when. Of course, today, modern Mormons might not care too much about how their original leaders were so ignorant of the Bible that they could make truly amazing mistakes, but anyone who seriously thinks these men were prophets of God in any meaningfully

If you do not know the name Hugh Nibley, you are not familiar with Mormonism and Mormon apologetics. He was the father of the modern movement that is today F.A.R.M.S., the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, the chief arm of LDS apologetics out of BYU. Oh, he wasn’t the only source of LDS apologetics: that movement really predated

Utah State Representative Douglas C. Aagard has introduced a bill in the Utah House, HB0131, found here, that is currently titled, “Access to Health Care Facilities and Places of Worship.” It reads in part, . provides that knowingly approaching within eight feet of a person for the purpose of passing out literature, displaying an object, or engaging in protest or

Once again that scene in I, Robot comes to mind, where Spooner blows away a robot and looks at the lady and says, “Somehow, I don’t think ‘I told you so’ really says it all” or something to that effect (I haven’t invested in the movie yet). When Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Seminary, wrongly blasted everyone who had accurately

Quite some time ago we corrected the constant, errant, repeated misuse of Irenaeus by LDS apologists, and in particular, the usage by Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks in one of the few specifically counter-evangelical apologetic books out there, Offenders for a Word. We had posted this information quite some time ago: In my book Is the Mormon My

An excellent article in light of my comments on the continuing campaign of Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Seminary, to give aid and comfort to LDS apologists, hopefully out of ignorance, though, from what this article indicates, it may just be out of that same kind of academic hubris that insists upon seeing “fellow scholars” as colleagues even when they

More on this later, but there are major developments in the DNA and the Book of Mormon story. Read about it here. This is the kind of thing that could very well end up splitting the LDS Church between the “We have latter-day revelation and refuse to give up on old time Mormonism” of central and southern Utah and the

Nothing like an odd headline, eh? OK, here’s what it’s all about. Concept 2 rowing machines. Here’s what they look like. OK, I got hooked on rowing while on a cruise a while back. They had these in the gym on the ship, and I loved it. Tried to get started with a cheapie Sears type when I got home,

It would not have even been a question thirty years ago. Grant Palmer’s book, in which he in essence admits what non-LDS historians have been saying for a very long time (how Smith “revised” Scripture to his own ends, for example, and how the Book of Mormon is not an ancient record), would have resulted in instant excommunication only a

One of the larger “counter-cult” organizations has put out a statement responding to Mouw. I had a hard time following it at a few points, but it is much like my own replies, posted below. It has a useful citation from Millet affirming the very concept Mouw has identified as not being a part of LDS doctrine! Mouw has surely

Unless you have been monitoring a wide variety of sources, you might think my response to, and refutation of, Fuller Seminary President Richard Mouw’s comments in the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City was harsh. In comparison to the rhetoric of some, I’m a cupcake. But, thankfully, by avoiding the extraneous arm-waving and calls for jihads I hope that I have

Robert Millet’s presentation on the 11/27 episode of Faith Under Fire was truly an excellent example of the “modern” Mormon viewpoint that is actively seeking to shift the emphasis that had existed in Mormon theology from the last days of Joseph Smith all the way through Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie. Those familiar with the sermons and teachings

I just noted that the question of Mormonism is going to be addressed on “Faith Under Fire” this evening on PAX. But then when I saw who was going to be on, I just groaned. The LDS side will be represented by Robert Millet from BYU, and the Christian side by Greg Johnson. Those familiar with the situation in Utah

Those of you who are in the Texas area will want to keep an eye open for the announcement of the dedication period for the new San Antonio Temple. Watch for the announcement here.   I would encourage believers there in Texas, even those who are not particularly focused upon evangelizing Mormons, to find the time to visit the temple

Dr. Mouw simply does not seem to understand the central issue in Mormon apologetics. Here’s a Baptist Press article you might wish to review. Let me try to state it clearly, though this may be counter-productive, as clarity does not seem to be the aim of so much of the Academy today: Christianity is monotheistic. This is not an arguable

One of the key developments of late that has caused many to question the validity of at least some of the evangelicals who spoke in the LDS Tabernacle in Salt Lake City has to do with the fact that some, such as Richard Mouw of Fuller Seminary, have chosen, whether out of ignorance or hubris, to attack all of those

I was sent a response to my entry below concerning Daniel Peterson whose unwillingness to defend Mormonism in public debate runs contrary to his own stated stance (as in this clip from a radio program in California). In it Peterson does not refute any of the facts I presented, nor even mention his own statement in the audio clip. Instead,

One report on the conference contained these, somewhat ironic, words: SANDY — Bluffing is involved in a great many verbal and written attacks on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, according to an unofficial apologist for the church. Daniel C. Peterson, sometimes referred to as the “chief apologist for the LDS Church,” made that declaration Friday in the final

I’ve put up with his personal insults since 1996, sniping footnotes in papers, the regular drumbeat of the “thorn in the flesh” that we sometimes must bear with as much grace as we can. But over the past year Dr. Owen has decided to take a much more public role not only in his ever-personal campaign, but now he is