What do you think of this? Bonocore vs. Slick Debate

[majick275]

isn’t amgid fun?evangelicals say mormons aren’t Christians, they also say Catholics aren’t Christian so if you beleive that Mormons aren’t Christian then you must also believe that Catholicas aren’t Christians either…

SO who made the Evangelicals the standard by which Christians are measured?

The reasons for claiming that mormons aren’t Christian are independent of Catholicism. Mormons believe in Jesus Christ they just have a completely different opinion of who/what he is. That is why those who worship Christ and pray to him as our God think that those who don’t can’t really be called Christians. Similar to the JW’s Mormons should semantically be classified as “elohists” as they worship and pray to Elohim who they see as a completely different being in both person AND type.

 

[zerinus]

Okay, I will check the sources and come back to you later. I don’t have the JoD hand, so I will have to find a good source on the Internet to check and tell you the result.

zerinus

Well, Karin, I did some research for you, and here is the result:

Brigham Young said that the “Christian God is the Mormon’s Devil…” (Journal of Discourses, Volume 5, page 331).

Unfortunately I couldn’t obtain the source for that one (yet). I have found two sources for the Journal of Discourses, one at BYU, in which volumes 2-9 seem to be missing; and the other is: journalofdiscourses.org/ which seems to be the best source. But unfortunately the links to volume 5 wasn’t working on that one, so I couldn’t obtain the source for that. I will do the best I can to find the source and give it to you as soon as I can.

John Taylor said that Christianity was “hatched in hell” (Journal of Discourses, Volume 6, page 176) and “a perfect pack of nonsense…the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work…” (Journal of Discourses, Volume 6, page 167).

I did find the source for that, and it is very much misquoted. The exact quote is actually as follows:

“Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell.”

That is a very different thing from saying that “Christianity is hatched in hell”. And I can tell you why he said that. At that time the LDS Church had been, and was continuing to be, heavily persecuted by the “Christian” churches of the day. They had been driven from their homes, their houses had been burned, some of them had been murdered; and it is a perfectly natural reaction for someone to say that their persecutor were “hatched in hell”. I am entirely in agreement with that. The true church of God does not persecute anybody. Only the church of the devil does. And they are “hatched in hell”. That is entirely correct. As a general rule, however, let me assure you that the LDS Church does not say nasty things about other churches, but is very courteous towards them. For every on such quote that you may find in early LDS writings (and there are not many) I can find hundreds which speak courteously and respectfully of other churches. Evangelical sources about LDS are full of lies. They cannot be trusted. I suggest in the future you find more reliable sources to attack LDS with.

Bruce R. McConkie said, “What is the church of the devil in our day, and where is the seat of her power?.. It is all of the systems, both Christian and non-Christian, that perverted the pure and perfect gospel… It is communism; it is Islam; it is Buddhism; it is modern Christianity in all its parts. It is Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, and Italy under Mussolini.” (The Millennial Messiah, pp. 54-55.) SOURCE

I haven’t bothered to look up the source for that one, and I am not going to. Elder McConkie has said a lot of controversial things for which he was reproved by the leadership of the Church, and he does not have the last say about what LDS teach and believe.

zerinus

 

[PhilVaz]

Z << But when the same kind of reasonings are used by them to say that Catholicism is not Christian and Mormonism is not Christian, it is double standards to say it is valid when applied in one case and invalid when applied in the other >>

Problem is Matt Slick and CARM are not using consistent standards and the same kind of reasoning. I need to re-check what they say about Mormonism, but it can be argued that Mormonism is not Christian because they do not adhere to the ancient historical Christian Creeds (Nicene, Constantinople, etc) that interpret Scripture about God, the Trinity, and the person of Christ. This is what I presume Slick would say about Mormonism. Mormons do not have the same God and Christ as Christians (whether Catholics, Protestants, or Orthodox).

However, Matt Slick says Catholics are not Christian because they do not hold to a sixteenth-century interpretation (and to him biblical interpretatation) of Justification by Faith Alone.

Different standard. By the standard of the ancient Creeds, most Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox would be “Christian.” The Creeds do not mention “justification by faith alone” or even justification at all. So Slick is not consistent. The creeds teach Christ died for our sins and was raised according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:1-8).

Thanks for Part 2 of the Bonocore vs. Slick debate.

Phil P

 

[zerinus]

Z << But when the same kind of reasonings are used by them to say that Catholicism is not Christian and Mormonism is not Christian, it is double standards to say it is valid when applied in one case and invalid when applied in the other >>

Problem is Matt Slick and CARM are not using consistent standards and the same kind of reasoning. I need to re-check what they say about Mormonism, but it can be argued that Mormonism is not Christian because they do not adhere to the ancient historical Christian Creeds (Nicene, Constantinople, etc) that interpret Scripture about God, the Trinity, and the person of Christ. This is what I presume Slick would say about Mormonism. Mormons do not have the same God and Christ as Christians (whether Catholics, Protestants, or Orthodox).

However, Matt Slick says Catholics are not Christian because they do not hold to a sixteenth-century interpretation (and to him biblical interpretatation) of Justification by Faith Alone.

Okay, so why should he be right abut the Mormons and wrong about the Catholics? If he was smart enough to figure out correctly that Mormons are not Christians, why should he not be smart enough to figure out correctly that Catholics are not Christians? If you are going to say that he is right about Mormons and wrong about the Catholics, I am equally entitled to say that he is right about the Catholics and wrong about the Mormons. Who is to say? I call a Christian anybody who considers himself to be a Christian. I many disagree with his theology, but I can’t say that he is not a Christian if he says that he is. He decides what he is, not me. If somebody tells me that he is a Moslem, then I will call him a Moslem. I won’t tell him that I know better and he is a Hindu! The bottom line is that it is extremely hypocritical for a Catholic to go and chime in with a bunch of Evangelical fanatics shouting that Mormons are not Christians, while ignoring the fact that the same Evan fanatics are shouting at the same time that Catholics are not Christians.

Different standard. By the standard of the ancient Creeds, most Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox would be “Christian.” The Creeds do not mention “justification by faith alone” or even justification at all. So Slick is not consistent. The creeds teach Christ died for our sins and was raised according to the Scriptures (1 Cor 15:1-8).

If you make the belief in the Creeds a determining factor for deciding who is Christian and who is not, then Jesus was not Christian either, because there were no Creeds at the time that He was around.

Thanks for Part 2 of the Bonocore vs. Slick debate.

You are welcome. But if you know him or can contact him, advise him not to continue his debates with Matt Slick. He puts himself at a great disadvantage by doing that.

zerinus

 

[PhilVaz]

Z << Okay, so why should he be right about the Mormons and wrong about the Catholics? If he was smart enough to figure out correctly that Mormons are not Christians, why should he not be smart enough to figure out correctly that Catholics are not Christians? >>

Oh this is easy. Matt Slick is mostly right about the Creeds, and but mostly wrong about Catholicism. When he uses the Creeds to judge what an “orthodox Christian” is to believe, he is using the same standard that Catholics, Orthodox, all the Fathers, Saints, and Doctors have used in the visible Catholic Church for 2000 years. A little Philip Hughes for you:

“The first General Council met in 325. The Church had then been an established fact for nearly three hundred years…the idea that what bishops collectively agree is law has a binding force that is greater than any of their individual instructions to their own see. To begin with the last point, it is a safe statement that from the moment when history first shows us the Church of Christ as an institution, the exclusive right of the Church to state with finality what should be believed as Christ’s teaching is manifestly taken for granted. To bring out a theory of belief, or to propose a change in morals which conflicts with what the Church universally holds is, from the very beginning, to put oneself fatally in the wrong. The immediate, spontaneous reaction of the Church to condemn thinkers with new and original views of this kind is perhaps the most general, as it is the most striking, of all the phenomena of the Church’s early history, so far back as the record goes.” (Philip Hughes, A History of the General Councils, introduction)

When Slick says “Catholics are not Christians” because they do not hold to a 16th-century interpretation of Justification by Faith Alone, he is using a standard for “Christianity” that was invented in the 16th century. Very simple. It’s a matter of history.

“The significance of the Protestant distinction between -iustificatio- and -regeneratio- is that a fundamental discontinuity has been introduced into the western theological tradition where none had existed before…the essential point is that a notional distinction is made where none had been acknowledged before in the history of Christian doctrine…A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification – as opposed to its mode – must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum.” (Anglican evangelical scholar Alister McGrath, IUSTITIA DEI: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 19 conclusion)

The next question we (Mormons and Catholics) have is why do the Creeds have the authority Catholics (and Orthodox and most Protestants) give to them? Because that authority goes back to the authority of Christ and there was no “apostasy” from the teachings of Christ. But on that point, Mormons and Catholics disagree. The Bible itself doesn’t tell us what an orthodox “Christian” is to believe, only that they are “followers of Christ” (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16). So the Bible alone can’t resolve the question. A living external authority can and has.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Z << The bottom line is that it is extremely hypocritical for a Catholic to go and chime in with a bunch of Evangelical fanatics shouting that Mormons are not Christians, while ignoring the fact that the same Evan fanatics are shouting at the same time that Catholics are not Christians. >>

Not so, if the anti-Mormon Catholic and anti-Mormon evangelical fanatics are using the same standard to call Mormons not Christian, the Catholic doing so is being consistent. That standard is the historic creeds of Christendom accepted by Catholics, Orthodox, most Protestants, and the Fathers, Saints, and Doctors of the Church for 2000 years.

Protestant evangelical fanatics who go further and call Catholics “not Christian” can only do so by a 16th century standard that no one accepted until the 16th century. They do not appeal to the ancient Creeds at this point since the Creeds do not mention “justification by faith alone” or justification at all. Makes sense to me. Am I right? That’s the standard Slick and CARM are using to call Catholics “not Christian”, a standard invented in the 16th century. Very illogical and inconsistent if you ask me.

I haven’t visited CARM since at least 1999. Appears to be the same old. I haven’t missed much.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

BTW, I am listening to Part 2 of the Mark Bonocore vs. Matt Slick debate, and Bonocore is clearly running Slick around in circles. Bonocore is crushing this guy Slick who cannot make a single point stand. Hooray for Bonocore!

Part 3 was yesterday (11/8/2006) and is also now available. I am combining all three parts into one MP3 and may make available at my site. Good stuff!

CARM Podcast

Slick is I think a little nutty the way he makes jokes. But I should talk.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Z << On second thought, I would say that that was a very unfair kind of debate. Matt Slick wouldn’t let the other guy talk. He was constantly shouting him down and talking over his head. >>

BTW, you should listen carefully again. Matt Slick was quite fair in my opinion, and basically let Mark Bonocore walk all over him! Bonocore is like Slick in that they both like to talk, and sometimes Slick interrupted but I didn’t see that as a problem since it is his show.

But since Bonocore’s arguments were clearly much stronger, Bonocore clearly won the exchange. Bonocore should definitely continue if Slick lets him, but in Part 3 they started to repeat themselves. I’ve saved Parts 1 and 2 and re-encoded as one MP3 on my site. This is actually a very good debate and approaches the quality of the 1995 Akin vs. White BAM debate!

Phil P

 

[Karin]

Well, Karin, I did some research for you, and here is the result:

Unfortunately I couldn’t obtain the source for that one (yet). I have found two sources for the Journal of Discourses, one at BYU, in which volumes 2-9 seem to be missing; and the other is: journalofdiscourses.org/ which seems to be the best source. But unfortunately the links to volume 5 wasn’t working on that one, so I couldn’t obtain the source for that. I will do the best I can to find the source and give it to you as soon as I can.

I did find the source for that, and it is very much misquoted. The exact quote is actually as follows:

“Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell.”
That is a very different thing from saying that “Christianity is hatched in hell”. And I can tell you why he said that. At that time the LDS Church had been, and was continuing to be, heavily persecuted by the “Christian” churches of the day. They had been driven from their homes, their houses had been burned, some of them had been murdered; and it is a perfectly natural reaction for someone to say that their persecutor were “hatched in hell”. I am entirely in agreement with that. The true church of God does not persecute anybody. Only the church of the devil does. And they are “hatched in hell”. That is entirely correct. As a general rule, however, let me assure you that the LDS Church does not say nasty things about other churches, but is very courteous towards them. For every on such quote that you may find in early LDS writings (and there are not many) I can find hundreds which speak courteously and respectfully of other churches. Evangelical sources about LDS are full of lies. They cannot be trusted. I suggest in the future you find more reliable sources to attack LDS with.

I haven’t bothered to look up the source for that one, and I am not going to. Elder McConkie has said a lot of controversial things for which he was reproved by the leadership of the Church, and he does not have the last say about what LDS teach and believe.

zerinus

Z-
so the mormon records where changed once again to reflect something differently?

 

[zerinus]

Z << On second thought, I would say that that was a very unfair kind of debate. Matt Slick wouldn’t let the other guy talk. He was constantly shouting him down and talking over his head. >>

BTW, you should listen carefully again. Matt Slick was quite fair in my opinion, and basically let Mark Bonocore walk all over him! Bonocore is like Slick in that they both like to talk, and sometimes Slick interrupted but I didn’t see that as a problem since it is his show.

But since Bonocore’s arguments were clearly much stronger, Bonocore clearly won the exchange. Bonocore should definitely continue if Slick lets him, but in Part 3 they started to repeat themselves. I’ve saved Parts 1 and 2 and re-encoded as one MP3 on my site. This is actually a very good debate and approaches the quality of the 1995 Akin vs. White BAM debate!

Phil P

Part 3 was a better debate than part 2. I agree that Bonocore generally tends to come on top.

Hey I looked at your website. You are a computer buff! You are into all that programming stuff. Is that what you do for a job? I did a litle bit of that (for fun, not professionally) a long time ago, but haven’t done it for a long time, and have forgotten most of what I knew. You tend to forget that kind of thing if you don’t do it for a long time. But it is a fun thing to do.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Z-
so the mormon records where changed once again to reflect something differently?

Sorry Karin, but what you say has never made much sense to me. I hope other people can make better sense of what you say.

zerinus

 

[Karin]

Sorry Karin, but what you say has never made much sense to me. I hope other people can make better sense of what you say.

zerinus

LOL!!! that is ok Z as most of the stuff you quote/say makes no sense either
Z:

I did find the source for that, and it is very much misquoted. The exact quote is actually as follows:

“Brother Taylor has just said that the religions of the day were hatched in hell.”

hence my comment of …so the mormon records where changed once again to reflect something differently?

 

[Karin]

"Christianity…is a perfect pack of nonsense…the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century."
(Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.167);
"Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom."

• Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, 10:127

**What does the Christian world know about God? Nothing… Why so far as the things of God are concerned, they are the veriest fools; they know neither God nor the things of God."
**- Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourse, 13:225

 

[Karin]

Z-
And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. 1Nephi14:10

How do you as a mormon interpert this passage?

 

[zerinus]

Z << Okay, so why should he be right about the Mormons and wrong about the Catholics? If he was smart enough to figure out correctly that Mormons are not Christians, why should he not be smart enough to figure out correctly that Catholics are not Christians? >>

Oh this is easy. Matt Slick is mostly right about the Creeds, and but mostly wrong about Catholicism. When he uses the Creeds to judge what an “orthodox Christian” is to believe, he is using the same standard that Catholics, Orthodox, all the Fathers, Saints, and Doctors have used in the visible Catholic Church for 2000 years. A little Philip Hughes for you:

“The first General Council met in 325. The Church had then been an established fact for nearly three hundred years…the idea that what bishops collectively agree is law has a binding force that is greater than any of their individual instructions to their own see. To begin with the last point, it is a safe statement that from the moment when history first shows us the Church of Christ as an institution, the exclusive right of the Church to state with finality what should be believed as Christ’s teaching is manifestly taken for granted. To bring out a theory of belief, or to propose a change in morals which conflicts with what the Church universally holds is, from the very beginning, to put oneself fatally in the wrong. The immediate, spontaneous reaction of the Church to condemn thinkers with new and original views of this kind is perhaps the most general, as it is the most striking, of all the phenomena of the Church’s early history, so far back as the record goes.” (Philip Hughes, A History of the General Councils, introduction)

When Slick says “Catholics are not Christians” because they do not hold to a 16th-century interpretation of Justification by Faith Alone, he is using a standard for “Christianity” that was invented in the 16th century. Very simple. It’s a matter of history.

“The significance of the Protestant distinction between -iustificatio- and -regeneratio- is that a fundamental discontinuity has been introduced into the western theological tradition where none had existed before…the essential point is that a notional distinction is made where none had been acknowledged before in the history of Christian doctrine…A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification – as opposed to its mode – must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum.” (Anglican evangelical scholar Alister McGrath, IUSTITIA DEI: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, Volume 1, Chapter 5, Section 19 conclusion)

The next question we (Mormons and Catholics) have is why do the Creeds have the authority Catholics (and Orthodox and most Protestants) give to them? Because that authority goes back to the authority of Christ and there was no “apostasy” from the teachings of Christ. But on that point, Mormons and Catholics disagree.

The LDS position bypasses all of that. We believe that the early Christian church did fall into apostasy long before the Councils were held, and that neither the church nor the Councils had any divine authority. That settles the issue as far as we are concerned. You are free to disagree with that if you like, but for us that is the deciding factor. And by the way, Evans don’t say LDS is not Christian on the basis of the authority of the Councils. The hold to the sola scriptura, and they attack on the basis of their interpretation of the Bible, as they do with Cathlicism.

The Bible itself doesn’t tell us what an orthodox “Christian” is to believe, only that they are “followers of Christ” (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16). So the Bible alone can’t resolve the question. A living external authority can and has.

Except that that “living” authority is in fact apostate, and has lost its authority. We do believe, however, that a “living authority” is required; and that “living authority” now rests exclusively in the LDS Church, and nowhere else.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I haven’t visited CARM since at least 1999. Appears to be the same old. I haven’t missed much.

Phil P

You are right, you haven’t! If anything it has got a lot worse!

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Z-
And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. 1Nephi14:10

How do you as a mormon interpert this passage?

That is a good question Karin. I interpret it by borrowing a concept from Protestantism. The Protestants have concept that they call the “invisible church”. I believe that the “two churches” that are mentioned in that verse are both in fact “invisible” churches. All of mankind are divided up into two categories—regardless of which church, religion, or denomination they belong to. Some fall into the church of God and some into the church of the devil. The LDS Church is the physical and visible manifestation of God’s only true Church on earth at the present time; but that does not mean that some members of the “church of the devil” may not also be residing in it. Similarly, other Christian (and non-Christian) churches and religions may no longer be physical manifestation of God’s true church on earth today; but that does not mean that some members of true “church of God” may not be residing in them. That is my interpretation of that verse.

zerinus

 

[Karin]

That is a good question Karin. I interpret it by borrowing a concept from Protestantism.

why borrow anything from another faith to describe your own scripture? Dont mormons have their “own ideas” of what their own texts mean??

Elder Bruce R. McConkie defined the church of the devil in the following way: “The church of the devil is the world; it is all the carnality and evil to which fallen man is heir; it is every unholy and wicked practice; it is every false religion, every supposed system of salvation which does not actually save and exalt man in the highest heaven of the celestial world. It is every church except the true church, whether parading under a Christian or a pagan banner. As Moroni will say in a later era of Nephite history, and as we shall ascertain in our evaluation of *Rev. 18:*1–24, it is ‘secret combinations,’ oath-bound societies, and the great world force of Godless communism. (Ether 8:14–26.)” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3:551).
SOURCE

 

[zerinus]

Karin:
why borrow anything from another faith to describe your own scripture? Dont mormons have their “own ideas” of what their own texts mean??
We certainly do, but we don’t have a monopoly of good ideas. Other people can come up with good ideas too. Truth is not the exclusive preserve of the LDS Church. We accept good principles and true concepts wherever they may be found.

zerinus

 

[Karin]

We certainly do, but we don’t have a monopoly of good ideas. Other people can come up with good ideas too. Truth is not the exclusive preserve of the LDS Church. We accept good principles and true concepts wherever they may be found.

zerinus

LOL!
so what do you think of Elder Bruce R. McConkie’s interpertation of that passage? I’ll repost it here for you…
Elder Bruce R. McConkie defined the church of the devil in the following way: “The church of the devil is the world; it is all the carnality and evil to which fallen man is heir; it is every unholy and wicked practice; it is every false religion, every supposed system of salvation which does not actually save and exalt man in the highest heaven of the celestial world. It is every church except the true church, whether parading under a Christian or a pagan banner. As Moroni will say in a later era of Nephite history, and as we shall ascertain in our evaluation of –24Rev. 18:1, it is ‘secret combinations,’ oath-bound societies, and the great world force of Godless communism. (Ether 8:14–26.)” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3:551).
SOURCE