Creeds of men that the lord found abominable...from an lds explanation.

[zaffiroborant]

another case of great minds thinking alike but it really would not be fair on my part, or anyone elses to judge todays Mormons by yesterdays events. todays Mormons are so far removed from what their founders did and taught, there is really no comparison. and if we give them another 100 years…like i said. the RCOJCOLDS already agrees with the rest of Christiandom on the trinity, which is a bigee. who knows what the future holds. as time goes on, Main body continues to evolve( in the loose sense of the word) closer to us, as opposed to further. there is much to love about them. peace

Except that the OP’s whole point is to judge all of Christianity in 1820 by what were then “yesterdays events” as shown in his posts in his posts on this thread:

Hello Kathleen!

I think that the discussion would need to take on a more indepth analysis. Would God find fault in the christian faiths that existed in 1820? This is the question that needs addressing. Christianity was full of bloodshed by 1820. I have already pointed out the religious wars that engulfed Europe for a well over a hundred years between the catholics and protestants. Plus, we also have excesses in the colonies of the European empires as christian europeans tended to look down on native populations.

And so, were the christian faiths teaching the doctrines of men or of god? The mormons would say both. As the article claims, other faiths do have truth and mormons should embrace such truths but also reject the doctrines of men.

I think that one must look at christianity at the micro level up until 1820. What exactly was going on in the christian faiths? Were there injustices commited in the name of god. And would they continue in the name of god? What were the small corruptions between church and state that directly affected people’s lives? And would god have the right to be just a little angry with the faiths that represented his name?

These are some questions that would need to be dicussed and answered.

Before we get carried away, I think that the key for the mormon concept of apostacy is found in a sentence that Joseph Smith stated as taken from the article I linked to in my OP:

In an account dictated in 1832 to Frederick G. Williams, the Prophet Joseph related how the Savior had told him that “the world lieth in sin at this time and none doeth good.” The Lord further said, “They draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me.” (Backman, First Vision, p. 157.)

“They draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me”. Would this be true for christianity in 1820 when we consider christian history? I believe that this sentence is the key to the mormon belief of apostacy. It is not just about creed but how we do life in our daily existence. Certainly when we look at christians persecuting and killing other christians, we might be able to see some truth in that sentence.

This thread is nothing more than a chance for him to tear up Christianity. If you read his posts (“back history” if seen it referred to) you’ll see he does this frequently.

ETA:

And of course we see him tearing down Christianity while excusing Mormonism of any bad behavior(mmm).

 

[why_me]

Joseph Smith himself shooting people before he was killed, and other issues come to mind.

I suppose that after a mob of a hundred screaming men ran up the prison stairs firing their guns, killing Joseph Smith’s brother who stood there next to him, Joseph could have just stood there like a bump on a log…but…he didn’t. I would have done the same…fired my gun after seeing my brother shot dead for no reason.

 

[why_me]

Except that the OP’s whole point is to judge all of Christianity in 1820 by what were then “yesterdays events” as shown in his posts in his posts on this thread:

This thread is nothing more than a chance for him to tear up Christianity. If you read his posts (“back history” if seen it referred to) you’ll see he does this frequently.

ETA:

And of course we see him tearing down Christianity while excusing Mormonism of any bad behavior(mmm).

Now Zaff, don’t do a fly by. Post something of substance about the subject of the thread. Have a dialogue. I make no excuses for MMM or the danites. However, context is often missing from the mormon threads that are not too favorable toward mormons. I provide the context.

Any comments as to whether god would be happy with the christian church up until 1820?

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Now Zaff, don’t do a fly by. Post something of substance about the subject of the thread. Have a dialogue. I make no excuses for MMM or the danites. However, context is often missing from the mormon threads that are not too favorable toward mormons. I provide the context.

Sorry, your “context” is simply excuses to explain away “abominations” in Mormonism’s own history. You’re trying to claim that there were abominations in the history of Christianity and that Mormonism’s were somewhat justifiable. We clearly see excesses and other things that you accuse Christianity of right in Mormon history. No way around it.

Any comments as to whether god would be happy with the christian church up until 1820?

What exactly happened in 1820 that would say otherwise? The creation of Mormonism did not create anything different in the Christian landscape from our perspective, anymore than the creation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Christadelphians, Assemblies of God, etc. And of course we believe that God was happy with the “christian church” (what do you mean by that? We believe that the Catholic Church is The Church), and that God knows that we are all sinners and that the Church is a hospital of sinners. I assume that Mormons agree with that, what with Mountain Meadows, Danites, etc.

 

[zaffiroborant]

hi why me. interesting article. however, does it give specifics about what creeds and doctrines are abominable? i couldnt really find any. is it the Eucharist? is it the Apostles,Nicene creeds? is it the doctrine of the trinity? i find it interesting that the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints agrees with the rest of Christiandom on the doctrine of the Trinity. will read the article again. maybe i missed the specifics. it is late but if it doesnt, maybe you might be able to point them out. it should make for interesting discussion. hopefully people can remain civil this time…thats my prayer at least peace

The article is in a magazine directed at LDS members it is a magazine for promoting the faith of those members. Giving specifics and defending belief/doctrine is not the purpose of the Ensign. The articles’ (and the magazines’) sole purpose is to bolster the belief of members. That is why it hammers home the word abomination without ever addressing anything specific. Abomination is used 10 times in reference to others beliefs, this is to reinforce the LDS understanding that God does not look favorably upon those who hold these abominable beliefs and at the same time reassure members that they hold correct beliefs. “Truth is the only holy thing; and if it is violated or changed, those who teach it become corrupt and abominable.” LDS believe we violate and have changed “truth” and as a result we are abominable, though they do like to pretend that their “prophets” have never said anything along those lines.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

The article is in a magazine directed at LDS members it is a magazine for promoting the faith of those members. Giving specifics and defending belief/doctrine is not the purpose of the Ensign. The articles’ (and the magazines’) sole purpose is to bolster the belief of members. That is why it hammers home the word abomination without ever addressing anything specific. Abomination is used 10 times in reference to others beliefs, this is to reinforce the LDS understanding that God does not look favorably upon those who hold these abominable beliefs and at the same time reassure members that they hold correct beliefs. “Truth is the only holy thing; and if it is violated or changed, those who teach it become corrupt and abominable.” LDS believe we violate and have changed “truth” and as a result we are abominable, though they do like to pretend that their “prophets” have never said anything along those lines.

Very true. Have the specifics been in the creeds been addressed yet in this thread? I was just reading a new book called “The Biblical Roots of Mormonism” and it’s very interesting to see them confuse Trinitarianism with Unitarianism and/or Modalism. Now, there are Trinitarians themselves that do the same, but you’d think that an author of an apologetic work would at least research authoritative sources on the matter before creating a straw man argument.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Now Zaff, don’t do a fly by. Post something of substance about the subject of the thread. Have a dialogue. I make no excuses for MMM or the danites. However, context is often missing from the mormon threads that are not too favorable toward mormons. I provide the context.

Any comments as to whether god would be happy with the christian church up until 1820?

Well Why I don’t think that Christianity is a vaccination against sin, so the Church will be filled with sinners. It is after all a place for sinners to receive healing. So I see God looking upon the Christian church as always with mercy, love and, steadfastness.

But again here in this post I see you taking swipes at Christianity, it’s just more of your Christianity bad Mormonism good Keep it up and some of our new posters will see your true attitude (hint: not the group hug sort of thing) towards Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Very true. Have the specifics been in the creeds been addressed yet in this thread? I was just reading a new book called “The Biblical Roots of Mormonism” and it’s very interesting to see them confuse Trinitarianism with Unitarianism and/or Modalism. Now, there are Trinitarians themselves that do the same, but you’d think that an author of an apologetic work would at least research authoritative sources on the matter before creating a straw man argument.

I’m not being clear here so I’ll try again. The article is not an apologetic work it is an article meant to bolster the faith of members. The original poster was not making an apologetic point. The main focus of this thread was for him to throw dirt on historical Christianity, you can see it in all Why me’s posts on this thread. Sorry but no apologetic discussions here you have been mislead into reading LDS faith promoting literature and muck throwing at Christianity.

 

[why_me]

I’m not being clear here so I’ll try again. The article is not an apologetic work it is an article meant to bolster the faith of members. The original poster was not making an apologetic point. The main focus of this thread was for him to throw dirt on historical Christianity, you can see it in all Why me’s posts on this thread. Sorry but no apologetic discussions here you have been mislead into reading LDS faith promoting literature and muck throwing at Christianity.

Here you go again zaff with the negativity. My point was simple: Mormons claim apostacy. My question: would god be pleased with the christian churches up to 1820? That was my point. When we look into christianity and its history we find corruption, war, persecution etc. Now I do think that god would find these systematic happenings displeasing. And if so, would he call for a restoration? See my point zaff?

 

[why_me]

Now I am going to get serious, understanding why Jesus would over turn the tables …. How dare you come here and speak of these things dear to us as apostasies. We already know we are sinners, do you not know that you will be judged as you yourself judge others? Our lives in Christ are built on the shoulders of the Holy Family, the Family of Saints, and the “family” that makes up the “community”

That is not the point. The point is: was god so disappointed in churches that claim to represent him enough to call for a restoration? That is the point. My link stressed the goodness that is in other churches but were they following the dictates of god duing the persecution, wars, corruption that took place in christian histoy? Or were they following the dictates of men? If men, then there would be an apostacy.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Here you go again zaff with the negativity. My point was simple: Mormons claim apostacy. My question: would god be pleased with the christian churches up to 1820? That was my point. When we look into christianity and its history we find corruption, war, persecution etc. Now I do think that god would find these systematic happenings displeasing. And if so, would he call for a restoration? See my point zaff?

And again, we find those same things right in the history of Mormonism. Was God pleased?

 

[SirThomasMore]

Here you go again zaff with the negativity. My point was simple: Mormons claim apostacy. My question: would god be pleased with the christian churches up to 1820? That was my point. When we look into christianity and its history we find corruption, war, persecution etc. Now I do think that god would find these systematic happenings displeasing. And if so, would he call for a restoration? See my point zaff?

God dealt with a lot from His people and never pulled away. There was no need fror God pull away ever. The ONLY need for that came from Joe who needed an Apostasy to give him the power and glory he craved. He took that and ran with it, gaining money, titles, and fame. He ran from prosecution in Ohio, tried to run in Illinois. Do you truly believe this is the kind of man God would rest his church on?

 

[ParkerD]

Benedict,
I really appreciated your response here, and look forward to reading your thoughts.

I guess from reading a few comments, I should clarify further about the concept of becoming “like Christ” and why it is so important to believe that humankind has that capacity.

When Christ asked Peter to walk to him on the water, Peter showed that he could, and did so while he had complete faith in Christ, but then when that faith wavered he sank into the water. (He could swim, of course, as a fisherman, but he asked for Christ’s help anyway at that point because of the storm.) Here is the text in Matthew 14:

24 But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.
25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
28 And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
29 And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
32 And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.
33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

That experience ought to be an illustration that humankind have the capability and capacity to “walk on water” through faith in Christ, if and when He invites a person to do this and thus shows that it is His will that they walk on water at a point in time when He does the inviting.

The LDS belief is not at all that humankind can “walk on the water” without Christ’s help and guidance, so any discussion that says humankind have some inherent capability to do those kinds of things, without acknowledging that Christ is at the very center of being enabled to do that, is completely erroneous. Christ was always perfect in pre-mortal life, and was always perfect on earth–thus always able to command the “winds and waves to obey His will” because His perfection included perfect faith, and the understanding that He was doing the Father’s will at all times. Humankind are nowhere near that in “lone capability” or “lone capacity”, but with His help, our capability and our capacity become so incredibly enlarged that He can bring us to a condition that we, in and of ourselves, are both incapable of and undeserving of–yet He can do it anyway, because He has that kind of power. But His is the way to get there, and it includes a day-by-day, year-by-year growth process that is centered on repentance and change, guided by Him and the Holy Spirit. Without Them, the capability and capacity flounder into a “personal best” that is miniscule in comparison.

But the need is there for being led, and for believing it can happen so that we are willing to change and to believe in ourselves (and others) with Their help. It is only through being led that anyone would be able to “get there.”

Again, thanks for your comments.

To any reader who may take the time to read the above:

As this thread continues, please be aware that the strong “negative” words in that article are straight from the Bible in describing beliefs or practices that do not point toward having a relationship with God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost that lead toward becoming one with them. That relationship means the person has access to being spiritually in the presence of the Holy Ghost, so they have “personal revelation” happening in their life to both guide them and to lead them toward changes they need to make in their life, and as they change they claim the blessings of Christ’s atoning grace so that those sins they had committed before making the needed changes, are forgiven. Others in many faiths claim those same blessings of Christ’s atoning grace, which is a good thing…

These kinds of changes have mostly to do with personal relationships, where feelings get hurt and people are confronted with their faults on an intimate level. As one makes covenants that bring those changes into permanence in their life, then they are going to also find that there is a whole new level of changes they need to make, and thus “exaltation” and “perfection” are long preparatory processes, and not single events. Learning unconditional love and yet learning to allow free will and choice among all, with no “forced” or “threatened” compliance which would mean a person complying because of feeling fearful has their free will choice interrupted, are centrally important in this life-long process.

These points would need to be understood to have a context for understanding the general statements in the article cited in this thread (which I agree with Zaffiroborant was directed toward LDS members and didn’t shed much light that others could glean from about the strong words and their connotations.)

Peace to all readers here.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Again, I am not talking about acts of imperfection. But in house corruption where people were killed for political and religious gain—a more systematic form of corruption. People will make terrible mistakes and commit terrible sins in the name of faith. But I am referring to something much more deeper that was found inside the church. Was god angry with how the christian church acted throughout its history. And was there a need for a restoration?

Sidebar: some people bring up MMM and say, hey lookie here. But again the context is missing from the picture and the fear that the mormon settlers had of outsiders. Now we need to remember the antimormonism that was coming out from california. I can only give you a brief account and it is not done by me but by an historian:

Q: Why did the massacre happen?

SESSIONS: In my view there’s one word that tells you why and the word is fear; these guys were scared. All the settlements had been pulled back, Cedar City was ordered to stand. It was the last major settlement between here and California going on the southern route. There were a couple of little, you know, Harmony and there were a few people living down in Washington down that way–but Cedar was it. There were six hundred people in all of Iron County between Parowan and Cedar City. These people were absolutely scared to death. They had been hearing for years the wind over the passes that the Californians were going to come and wipe them out.

You want to have a great (inaudible) if you’re interested in this. You want to see how blessed you are to just get the anti-Mormon stuff that’s out there now. Pick up the Sacramento Bee for the 1850s–hardly a week goes by that in that paper, there isn’t an editorial saying, ‘We need to raise an army and go wipe the Mormons off the face of the earth.’ And the folks in Cedar were scared, in my view, out of their minds that that was exactly what was going to happen.

On Wednesday, some militiamen who were coming out–the massacre happened on Friday–on Wednesday night some militiamen were coming out to- they were told when they were rounded up they were going to go out and bury some people that got killed by the Indians and some of them were coming out and near Pinto Junction they came upon three people from the party making their way back to Cedar City for help.

And not knowing what’s going on, they killed them. They fired on these people. They killed young William Aiden who was, had been a Mormon and was leaving with the party to come to California. Two of these guys, there are various accounts, some say two got away there- or one got away, anyway at least one got away. They killed all three of them eventually. But on Wednesday when only one got away they were just convinced that he made it back to the wagon circle and were telling them, ‘This is not Indians, this is Mormons.’

And I don’t doubt at all that that was the final straw that broke the camel’s back. The decision was made the next day to kill them and it was made out at the Meadows; and Major Higby reported in various accounts, ‘Kill everyone who is old enough to tell the tale.’ And Mormons interpreted that as people at the age of accountability so they tried to pick the kids who looked like they were under eight to save, and killed the rest.

So in my view it was naked fear–they were just scared to death that these guys were going to go on to California and report that Mormons had attacked them and this would bring them in a mob out of California. That’s my view and the view of many other historians as well.

fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Shining_New_Light_on_the_Mountain_Meadows_Massacre.html

I find it interesting that when people gleam information from sites not very favorable to mormons, they do not take notice of context because context is always missing. Momons had been living in fear for a few decades. And the antimormonism in california and also in the US government had its impact because the antimormonism did not stop when the early lds moved to what became known as Utah.

However, the MMM was wrong. But put in context…a little understandable that such a terrible tragedy happened.

Why do you post from a Mormon Apologetic board? Do you really believe they are objective?

 

[catholic-rcia]

That is not the point. The point is: was god so disappointed in churches that claim to represent him enough to call for a restoration? That is the point. My link stressed the goodness that is in other churches but were they following the dictates of god duing the persecution, wars, corruption that took place in christian histoy? Or were they following the dictates of men? If men, then there would be an apostacy.

I have something to write, but have to go work. It was given to me in prayer last night. I believe it is for you.

Will be back tonight. First thought is we have confession to make up for our failures. There are no perfect people, no one who can do it better than others. God is not like a man who at times gets disappointed like human fathers and mothers. The restoration of all things is Jesus plain and simple. The Holy Spirit is at the core of the Church whether in good times or bad. The Confessionals are in the Church regardless of good times or bad.

The way you are judging is the way you will be judged unless you change. In your case only the bad things you have done will be exposed, while the good things you have done will not be exposed.

 

[eshuster]

Isn’t this all about faith? There are over 33,000 denominations of Christianity in the world today, all believing in large and small variations of theology among one another. The core belief is that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of the world, in whom we can gain forgiveness, salvation, and eternal life if we have faith and keep his commandments (as he said so in the Bible). I was Catholic for the first 27 years of my life and have been a Latter-day Saint over the last 21 years of my life. While my testimony in Jesus Christ has grown stronger and my ability to apply the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ to my life and the lives of my family are exceptionally greater, I am still a Christian and that has not changed.

It is all about faith.

Be happy my friends, Jesus Christ lives and we can live in him!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Isn’t this all about faith?

I’d say it’s all about what you have chosen to believe.

a ) Christ’s Church failed, or b ) it has not and never will.

It is all about faith.

Faith in a lie? It’s about truth.

Be happy my friends, Jesus Christ lives and we can live in him!

Coming from someone who gave up the Eucharist…I’m not really convinced by your words, my friend.

 

[soren1]

PS: I am afraid that my suggestion of “LDS atheism” might seem like anti-Mormon hyperbole. It seems worth the possibility that a quick read might make some LDS take offense, if I can help my fellow Catholics to realize that it might be a mistake to assume that Mormons mean what comes to our minds when they use the words “god” and “God”.

Rory,

Your whole post is spot on the money, but I want to add my specific agreement that “Mormon atheism” is not a hyperbole. Polytheism in any form is inherently closer to atheism than it is to monotheism. Gilbert and Sullivan got it right when the said, “If everybody’s somebody, then no one’s anybody.”

The Mormon denial of God as creator, predicated as it is on a strictly materialist conception of existence, is the same denial that constitutes the first premise of all atheistic worldviews. That is why when I say, “Richard Dawkins is a materialist,” and, “Thomas S. Monson is a materialist,” I mean nothing different by “materialist” in either context. Mormons deny not only the existence but even a thinkability of a supernatural worldview with no less dogmatism than A.J. Ayer or Christopher Hitchens.

As we have discussed in the past, the reason that most people who leave the LDS Church become atheists is not, as some Mormons allege, because non-Mormon Christianity fails to give them the answers that Mormonism could provide. It is because the materialist thought-habits and materialist values that people are brought up with in Mormonism dispose them to reject a supernatural worldview, so atheism seems to them the most natural alternative. Something that is true of my wife and all but one of the converts from Mormonism that I personally know is that after leaving Mormonism, they all went through an atheist phase, sometimes for quite a while, before discovering the true Christ. There are many more-ex-Mormons for whom atheism is not a phase.

Yet rather than “atheism,” a term I have begun to favor as a description for Mormonism is “secular humanism.” To LDS ears, this sounds at first like a shocking misrepresentation, and published works that have made this claim against Mormonism have garnered heaps of derision from LDS apologists. Yet it can be defended to the hilt. That Mormons are humanist follows immediately from the definition of humanism as “the belief that all value and purpose for humanity originates within the human species itself.” Since the gods are members of our species, and Mormons acknowledge no higher source of value, they are humanist by definition.

To see why “secular” applies to Mormons requires a little more explanation, because there is a lot of misunderstanding about what secularism is. People often think that “secular” just means “not religious.” That may be true in common parlance, but that is not the sense that applies to the philosophy of secular humanism. In that context, “secular” retains its classical meaning as “bound within time.” (Saeculum is Latin for “century, time, or age.”) And so the opposite of “secular” is not “religious” but “timeless,” or to take it a bit farther, “transcendent.” Because the LDS god is bound in time in every aspect of his nature, and must even progress from exaltation to exaltation, he is not a timeless or transcendent being. The love of such a god is hence a secular value, and Mormonism is properly a “secular religion.”

Thus everything in the definition of “secular humanism” applies univocally to Mormonism.

PPS: For soren…Marine Boy got married Saturday at the Basilica in San Juan Capistrano. Other than family, I think TAC people were in all the other five places of the wedding party. Very good times.

Congratulations, this is excellent news. If you send me a PM with the address of Vince and his wife, I will mail them a present.

 

[ParkerD]

Rory,

Your whole post is spot on the money, but I want to add my specific agreement that “Mormon atheism” is not a hyperbole. Polytheism in any form is inherently closer to atheism than it is to monotheism. Gilbert and Sullivan got it right when the said, “If everybody’s somebody, then no one’s anybody.”

The Mormon denial of God as creator, predicated as it is on a strictly materialist conception of existence, is the same denial that constitutes the first premise of all atheistic worldviews. That is why when I say, “Richard Dawkins is a materialist,” and, “Thomas S. Monson is a materialist,” I mean nothing different by “materialist” in either context. Mormons deny not only the existence but even a thinkability of a supernatural worldview with no less dogmatism than A.J. Ayer or Christopher Hitchens.

As we have discussed in the past, the reason that most people who leave the LDS Church become atheists is not, as some Mormons allege, because non-Mormon Christianity fails to give them the answers that Mormonism could provide. It is because the materialist thought-habits and materialist values that people are brought up with in Mormonism dispose them to reject a supernatural worldview, so atheism seems to them the most natural alternative. Something that is true of my wife and all but one of the converts from Mormonism that I personally know is that after leaving Mormonism, they all went through an atheist phase, sometimes for quite a while, before discovering the true Christ. There are many more-ex-Mormons for whom atheism is not a phase.

Yet rather than “atheism,” a term I have begun to favor as a description for Mormonism is “secular humanism.” To LDS ears, this sounds at first like a shocking misrepresentation, and published works that have made this claim against Mormonism have garnered heaps of derision from LDS apologists. Yet it can be defended to the hilt. That Mormons are humanist follows immediately from the definition of humanism as “the belief that all value and purpose for humanity originates within the human species itself.” Since the gods are members of our species, and Mormons acknowledge no higher source of value, they are humanist by definition.

To see why “secular” applies to Mormons requires a little more explanation, because there is a lot of misunderstanding about what secularism is. People often think that “secular” just means “not religious.” That may be true in common parlance, but that is not the sense that applies to the philosophy of secular humanism. In that context, “secular” retains its classical meaning as “bound within time.” (Saeculum is Latin for “century, time, or age.”) And so the opposite of “secular” is not “religious” but “timeless,” or to take it a bit farther, “transcendent.” Because the LDS god is bound in time in every aspect of his nature, and must even progress from exaltation to exaltation, he is not a timeless or transcendent being. The love of such a god is hence a secular value, and Mormonism is properly a “secular religion.”

Thus everything in the definition of “secular humanism” applies univocally to Mormonism.

Soren1,
The LDS belief in God is that He set the bounds of time within the sphere of time and space where we live. I don’t know why you say that “the LDS God is bound in time.” The LDS God created time, and uses time as a human element to allow people to change during their own personal time journey.

It could just as well be that the LDS view of God could be stated that since He originated before this universe and this “eternity” where all we know is that earth had a beginning and Adam and Eve were placed into the garden of Eden, then He is transcendent within the description of this universe.

The profound difference is that there is not a reasonable way to deal with the “problem of evil” if one truly believes that God is the original cause of everything in the universe, and is omnipotent and omniscient. Dawkins points that out in his books, of course. It is not a new argument against the “first cause” doctrine and philosophy. But the LDS view answers the argument far more soundly than does a philosophy that says God is the original, first cause of everything and thus everything that follows was caused, ultimately, by His first cause coming into fruition through successive events. It would always mean He knew originally exactly what was going to happen, when it was going to happen, who was going to do what, and He as the first cause Creator “caused” all of the subsequent events (albeit indirectly).

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

The profound difference is that there is not a reasonable way to deal with the “problem of evil” if one truly believes that God is the original cause of everything in the universe, and is omnipotent and omniscient. Dawkins points that out in his books, of course. It is not a new argument against the “first cause” doctrine and philosophy. But the LDS view answers the argument far more soundly than does a philosophy that says God is the original, first cause of everything and thus everything that follows was caused, ultimately, by His first cause coming into fruition through successive events. It would always mean He knew originally exactly what was going to happen, when it was going to happen, who was going to do what, and He as the first cause Creator “caused” all of the subsequent events (albeit indirectly).

How does the Mormon view answer the “problem of evil…far more soundly” than the traditional Christian view? Do Mormons believe that God did not know originally exactly what was going to happen, when it was going to happen, who was going to do what? To me, the idea of organizing preexisting material instead of ex nihilo still has the “problem of evil”, since God chose to organize everything from “intelligences”, and therefore gave Lucifer the capacity to do what he did/does. If we eternally existed as we are then this may be different, however Mormons believe that God organized us from pre-existing matter, and therefore gave us the capacity to do what we do.