fair enough. so rather than pore over everything mormon that CA didn’t publish, condense if you will the “jist” of what you think was left out that would be relevant to the specific claims made by CA
Hi Maj,
I don’t have time to go through everything they’ve published, but I’ll give you an example. They have a tract called, “The Gods of the Mormon Church,”
here.
They talk all about our belief in the plurality of Gods, but neglect to mention our belief that God is ONE.
They quote passages from LDS writings that seem to contradict one another, but neglect to mention how LDS people try to harmonize them.
They say, “In time, Mormons believe, the Heavenly Father came to earth and had physical, sexual intercourse with the Virgin Mary.” We have recently discussed this in this forum, and I think you agree with me that this is a gross oversimplification.
They say, “Moreover, Mormons teach that Christ is a secondary, inferior god. He does not exist from all eternity.” But this is false. Everyone existed from eternity in our view.
In the last section, they say,
“Be forewarned that your first discussion about the nature of God won’t produce any visible change in your Mormon acquaintance. He’s unlikely to admit the cogency and simplicity of your argument. He’s probably working in good faith, and he’s sincere in his beliefs. But psychologically you’re at a disadvantage, since he wants to maintain his faith as he’s known it. Be patient as you help him see these theological ‘black holes.’” I’m more inclined to think that there would be no visible change in your Mormon acquaintance because it would be clear to him that, if you followed the CA line of reasoning, you do not have a clear understanding of our belief system.
This is a very common form of religious argument. That is, you go through and show all the “contradictions” of the other faith, but never ask how, or even whether, these other people ever try to resolve them. Mormons do it all the time, so I’m not trying to single CA out.
