Most Christians who critique the Mormon view of God do so from
a strictly biblical perspective. Christian apologists have
correctly pointed out that Mormon theology conflicts with biblical
doctrine in a number of important areas, including the nature of
God, the plan of salvation, and the nature of man.[1]

Although the biblical approach should be the Christian's
primary focus, Dr. Stephen E. Parrish and I have suggested another
approach in several articles and books.[2] This approach focuses on
the _philosophical_ rather than the _biblical_ problems with the
Mormon concept of God.

In this article I will (1) compare and contrast the Christian
and Mormon concepts of God and (2) present three philosophical
problems with the Mormon view.


*THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPT OF GOD*

Christians claim that their concept of God is found in the
Bible. Known as _classical theism,_ this view of God has long been
considered the orthodox theistic position of the Western world.
Though there are numerous divine attributes that we could examine,
for our present purposes it is sufficient to say that the God of
classical theism is at least (1) personal and incorporeal (without
physical parts), (2) the Creator and Sustainer of everything else
that exists, (3) omnipotent (all-powerful), (4) omniscient
(all-knowing), (5) omnipresent (everywhere present), (6) immutable
(unchanging) and eternal, and (7) necessary and the only God.

Let us now briefly look at each of these attributes.

*1. Personal and Incorporeal.* According to Christian theism,
God is a personal being who has all the attributes that we may
expect from a perfect person: self-consciousness, the ability to
reason, know, love, communicate, and so forth. This is clearly how
God is described in the Scriptures (e.g., Gen. 17:11; Exod. 3:14;
Jer. 29:11).

God is also incorporeal. Unlike humans, God is not uniquely
associated with one physical entity (i.e., a body). This is why the
Bible refers to God as Spirit (John 4:24).

*2. The Creator and Sustainer of Everything Else that Exists.*
In classical theism, all reality is contingent on God -- that is,
all reality has come into existence and _continues_ to exist
because of Him. Unlike a god who forms the universe out of
preexistent matter, the God of classical theism created the
universe _ex nihilo_ (out of nothing). Consequently, it is on God
alone that everything in the universe depends for its existence
(_see_ Acts 17:25; Col. 1:16, 17; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 11:3; 2 Cor.
4:6; Rev. 4:11).

*3. Omnipotent.* God is also said to be omnipotent or
all-powerful. This should be understood to mean that God can do
anything that is (1) logically possible (_see_ below), and (2)
consistent with being a personal, incorporeal, omniscient,
omnipresent, immutable, wholly perfect, and necessary Creator.

Concerning the latter, these attributes are not _limitations_
of God's power, but _perfections._ They are attributes at their
infinitely highest level, which are essential to God's nature. For
example, since God is perfect, He cannot sin; because He is
personal, He is incapable of making Himself impersonal; because He
is omniscient, He cannot forget. All this is supported by the Bible
when its writers assert that God cannot sin (Mark 10:18; Heb.
6:18), cease to exist (Exod. 3:14; Mal. 3:6), or fail to know
something (Job 28:24; Ps. 139:17-18; Isa. 46:10a). Since God is a
perfect person, it is necessarily the case that He is incapable of
acting in a less than perfect way -- which would include sinning,
ceasing to exist, and being ignorant.

When the classical theist claims that God can only do what is
logically possible, he or she is claiming that God cannot do or
create what is logically _im_possible. Examples of logically
impossible entities include "married bachelors," "square circles,"
and "a brother who is an only child." But these are not _really_
entities; they are merely contrary terms that are strung together
and _appear_ to say something. Hence, the fact that God cannot do
the logically impossible does not in any way discount His
omnipotence.

Also counted among the things that are logically impossible for
God to do or create are those imperfect acts mentioned above which
a wholly perfect and immutable being cannot do -- such as sin, lack
omniscience, and/or cease to exist. Since God is a personal,
incorporeal, omniscient, omnipresent, immutable, wholly perfect,
and necessary Creator, it follows that any act _inconsistent_ with
these attributes would be necessarily (or logically) impossible for
God to perform. But this fact does not count against God's
omnipotence, since, as St. Augustine points out, "Neither do we
lessen [God's] power when we say He cannot die or be deceived. This
is the kind of inability which, if removed, would make God less
powerful than He is.... It is precisely because He is omnipotent
that for Him some things are impossible."[3]

But what about Luke 1:37, where we are told that "_nothing_ is
impossible with God?" (NIV) Addressing this question, St. Thomas
Aquinas points out that this verse is not talking about internally
contradictory or contrary "entities," since such "things" are not
really things at all. They are merely words strung together that
_appear_ to be saying something when in fact they are saying
nothing.[4] Hence, _everything_ is possible for God, but the
logically impossible is _not_ truly a _thing._

*4. Omniscient.* God is all-knowing, and His all-knowingness
encompasses the _past, present,_ and _future._[5] Concerning God's
unfathomable knowledge, the psalmist writes: "How precious to me
are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them! Were I to
count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand. When I awake,
I am still with you" (Ps. 139:17,18). Elsewhere he writes, "Great
is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit"
(147:5). The author of Job writes of God: "For he views the ends of
the earth and sees everything under the heavens" (Job 28:24).
Scripture also teaches that God has total knowledge of the past
(Isa. 41:22). Concerning the future, God says: "I make known the
end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say: 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please,'"
(Isa. 46:10). Elsewhere Isaiah quotes God as saying that
_knowledge_ (not opinion or highly probable guesses) of the future
is essential for deity (Isa. 41:21-24), something that
distinguished God from the many false gods of Isaiah's day.

*5. Omnipresent.* Logically following from God's omniscience,
incorporeality, omnipotence, and role as creator and sustainer of
the universe is His omnipresence. Since God is not limited by a
spatio-temporal body, knows everything immediately without benefit
of sensory organs, and sustains the existence of all that exists,
it follows that He is in some sense present everywhere. Certainly
it is the Bible's explicit teaching that God is omnipresent (Ps.
139:7-12; Jer. 23:23-24).

*6. Immutable and Eternal.* When a Christian says that God is
immutable and eternal, he or she is saying that God is _unchanging_
(Mal. 3:6; Heb. 6:17; Isa. 46:10b) and has _always existed_ as God
throughout all eternity (Ps. 90:2; Isa. 40:28; 43:12b, 13; 57:15a;
Rom. 1:20a; 1 Tim. 1:17).[6] There never was a time when God was
not God.

Although God certainly seems to change in response to how His
creatures behave -- such as in the case of the repenting Ninevites
-- His nature remains the same. No matter how the Ninevites would
have responded to Jonah's preaching, God's unchanging righteousness
would have remained the same: He is merciful to the repentant and
punishes the unrepentant. Hence, a God who is responsive to His
creatures is certainly consistent with, and seems to be entailed
in, an unchanging nature that is necessarily _personal._

*7. Necessary and the Only God.* The Bible teaches that
although humans at times worship some beings _as if_ these beings
were really gods (1 Cor. 8:4-6), there is only one true and living
God by nature (Isa. 43:10; 44:6, 8; 45:5, 18, 21, 22; Jer. 10:10;
Gal. 4:8; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; 1 Tim. 2:5; John 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9). And
since the God of the Bible possesses _all_ power (_see_ above),
there cannot be any other God, for this would mean that two beings
possess all power. That, of course, is patently absurd, since if a
being possesses all of everything (in this case, power) there is,
by definition, nothing left for anyone else.[7]

Moreover, since everything that exists depends on God, and God
is unchanging and eternal, it follows that God cannot _not_ exist.
In other words, He is a _necessary_ being,[8] whereas everything
else is contingent.


*THE MORMON CONCEPT OF GOD*

Apart from biblical influences, the Mormon doctrine of God is
derived primarily from three works regarded by the Mormon church
(the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [LDS]) as inspired
scriptu The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants
(hereafter D&C), and the Pearl of Great Price. (Most of these
writings were supposedly received through "revelation" by the
movement's founder and chief prophet, Joseph Smith.) It is also
found in Smith's other statements and doctrinal commentaries.
Although not regarded by the LDS church as scripture per se,
Smith's extracanonical pronouncements on doctrine are almost
universally accepted by the Mormon laity and leadership as
authoritative for Mormon theology.

The Mormon doctrine of God is also derived from statements and
writings of the church's ecclesiastical leaders -- especially its
presidents, who are considered divinely inspired prophets.
Additionally, we will consider the arguments of contemporary LDS
philosophers who have attempted to present Mormonism's doctrine of
God as philosophically coherent.[9]

Because there are so many doctrinal sources, it may appear
(with some justification) that it is difficult to determine
precisely what the Mormons believe about God. For example, the Book
of Mormon (first published in 1830) seems to teach a strongly
Judaic monotheism with modalistic (God is only one person
manifesting in three modes) overtones (_see_ Alma 11:26-31, 38;
Moroni 8:18; Mosiah 3:5-8; 7:27; 15:1-5), while the equally
authoritative Pearl of Great Price (first published in 1851)
clearly teaches that more than one God exists (_see_ Abraham 4-5).
This is why a number of Mormon scholars have argued that their
theology evolved from a traditional monotheism to a uniquely
American polytheism.[10]

Consequently, our chief concern will not be the historical
development of Mormon theism, but rather, the dominant concept of
God _currently_ held by the LDS church. Though there is certainly
disagreement among Mormon scholars concerning some precise points
of doctrine, I submit that the church currently teaches that God
is, in effect, (1) a contingent being, who was at one time not God;
(2) finite in _knowledge_ (not truly omniscient), _power_ (not
omnipotent), and _being_ (not omnipresent or immutable); (3) one of
many gods; (4) a corporeal (bodily) being, who physically dwells at
a particular spatio-temporal location and is therefore not
omnipresent like the classical God (respecting His intrinsic divine
nature -- we are not considering the Incarnation of the Son of God
here); and (5) a being who is subject to the laws and principles of
a beginningless universe with an infinite number of entities in it.

No doubt there are individual Mormons whose personal views of
God run contrary to the above five points. But since both the later
writings of Joseph Smith and current Mormon orthodoxy clearly
assert these five points, Mormons who dispute them are out of step
with their church.

The modern Mormon concept of God can best be grasped by
understanding the overall Mormon world view and how the deity fits
into it. Mormonism teaches that God the Father is a resurrected,
"exalted" human being named Elohim who was at one time _not_ God.
Rather, he was once a mortal man on another planet who, through
obedience to the precepts of _his_ God, eventually attained
exaltation, or godhood, himself through "eternal progression."

_Omniscience,_ according to Mormon theology, is one of the
attributes one attains when reaching godhood. Mormons appear to be
divided, however, on the meaning of omniscience. It seems that some
Mormons believe omniscience to mean that God has no _false_ beliefs
about the past, present, and future. This view is consistent with
the classical Christian view.[11]

On the other hand, the _dominant_ Mormon tradition teaches that
God only knows everything that can _possibly_ be known. But the
only things that can possibly be known, traditional Mormons say,
are the _present_ and the _past,_ since the former is occurring and
the latter has already occurred. Consequently, since the future is
not a "thing" and has never been _actual_ (and hence cannot
possibly be known), _God does not know the future._ Therefore, the
Mormon God is _omniscient_ in the sense that he knows everything
that can possibly be known, but he nevertheless increases in
knowledge as the future unfolds and becomes the present.[12] The
common ground of the two Mormon views is that God must, at minimum,
have complete and total knowledge of _everything_ in the past and
in the present.

Once Elohim attained godhood he then created this present world
by "organizing" both eternally preexistent, inorganic matter and
the preexistent primal intelligences from which human spirits are
made. Mormon scholar Hyrum L. Andrus explains:

Though man's spirit is organized from a pure and fine
substance which possesses certain properties of life,
Joseph Smith seems to have taught that within each
individual spirit there is a central primal intelligence
(a central directing principle of life), and that man's
central primal intelligence is a personal entity
possessing some degree of life and certain rudimentary
cognitive powers before the time the human spirit was
organized.[13]

For this reason, Joseph Smith wrote that "Man was also in the
beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not
created or made, neither indeed can be."[14] In other words, _man's
basic essence or primal intelligence is as eternal as God's._

The Mormon God, by organizing this world out of preexistent
matter, has granted these organized spirits the opportunity to
receive physical bodies, pass through mortality, and eventually
progress to godhood -- just as this opportunity was given him by
his Father God. Consequently, if human persons on earth faithfully
obey the precepts of Mormonism they, too, can attain godhood like
Elohim before them.

Based on the statements of Mormon leaders, some LDS scholars
contend that a premortal spirit is "organized" by God through
"spirit birth." In this process, human spirits are somehow
organized through literal sexual relations between our Heavenly
Father and one or more mother gods, whereby they are conceived and
born as spirit children _prior_ to entering the mortal realm
(although all human persons prior to spirit birth existed as
intelligences in some primal state of cognitive personal
existence).[15] Since the God of Mormonism was himself organized
(or spirit-birthed) by his God, who himself is a "creation" of yet
another God, and so on _ad infinitum,_ Mormonism therefore teaches
that the God over this world is a contingent being in an infinite
lineage of gods.[16] Thus, Mormonism is a polytheistic religion.

Comparing the Mormon concept with the classical Christian
concept of God (_see_ the chart for a breakdown of this
comparison[17]), Mormon philosopher Blake Ostler writes:

In contrast to the self-sufficient and solitary absolute
who creates _ex nihilo_ (out of nothing), the Mormon God
did not bring into being the ultimate constituents of the
cosmos -- neither its fundamental matter nor the
space/time matrix which defines it. Hence, unlike the
Necessary Being of classical theology who alone could not
_not_ exist and on which all else is contingent for
existence, the personal God of Mormonism confronts
uncreated realities which exist of metaphysical
necessity. Such realities include inherently
self-directing selves (intelligences), primordial
elements (mass/energy), the natural laws which structure
reality, and moral principles grounded in the intrinsic
value of selves and the requirements for growth and
happiness.[18]

Mormonism therefore teaches a metaphysical pluralism in which
certain basic realities have _always_ existed and are
indestructible even by God. In other words, _God came from the
universe; the universe did not come from God_ (although he did form
this planet out of preexistent matter).

It follows from what we have covered that in the Mormon
universe there are an infinite number of intelligent entities, such
as gods (exalted humans) and preexistent intelligences. If this is
denied, however, the Mormon must somehow reconcile a _finite_
number of these beings with an _infinite_ past. For instance, if
there is only a finite number of gods in a universe with an
infinite past, then there was a time when no gods existed (which
Joseph Smith denies[19]). For a finite number of gods coming into
being cannot be traced back infinitely. Moreover, if there is only
a finite number of gods, then the continually repeated scenario of
a god organizing intelligences so that they can begin their
progression to godhood would have never begun. This is so because
in Mormonism one needs a god in order for another to become a god,
and no being has always been a god.

Furthermore, if there were only a finite number of preexisting
intelligences in the infinite past, then there could no longer be
any preexistent intelligences who could become gods, since they
would all certainly be "used up" by now. An infinite amount of time
is certainly sufficient to use up a finite number of preexistent
intelligences. At any rate, in order for Mormonism to remain
consistent, it must teach that there is an _infinite_ number of
gods and preexistent intelligences in an infinitely large universe.

+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| CHRISTIAN | MORMON |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------|
|1. Personal and incorporeal |1. Personal and corporeal |
| | (embodied) |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------|
|2. Creator and sustainer |2. Organizer of the world, |
| of contingent existence | but subject to the laws |
| | and principles of a |
| | beginningless universe |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------|
|3. Omnipotent |3. Limited in power |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------|
|4. Omniscient |4. Limited in knowledge |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------|
|5. Omnipresent in being |5. Localized in space |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------|
|6. Immutable and eternal |6. Mutable and not eternal |
| | (as God) |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------|
|7. Necessary and the |7. Contingent and one of |
| only God | many gods |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------|
| CONCEPT OF GOD | CONCEPT OF GOD |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------+


*SOME PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS WITH THE MORMON CONCEPT OF GOD*

In our two books, Dr. Parrish and I deal with a number of
philosophical problems with the Mormon concept of God.[20] In this
article I will present three of these. Because of space
constraints, however, I cannot reply to all the possible Mormon
responses to these problems. For this reason, I refer the reader to
the detailed replies in my two books.


*The Problem of an Infinite Number of Past Events*

It is evident from what we have covered that Mormonism teaches
that the past series of events in time is _infinite_ or
_beginningless._ Joseph Fielding Smith, the Mormon church's tenth
prophet and president, writes that Joseph Smith "taught that _our
Father had a Father and so on._"[21] Heber C. Kimball, who served
as First Counselor in the church's First Presidency, asserts that
"we shall go back to our Father and God, who is connected with _one
who is still farther back;_ and this Father is connected with _one
still further back, and so on...._"[22] Apostle and leading
doctrinal spokesman Bruce R. McConkie writes that "the elements
from which the creation took place are eternal and therefore had no
beginning."[23] O. Kendall White, a Mormon sociologist, points out
that because Mormon theology assumes metaphysical materialism it
"not only assumes that God and the elements exist necessarily, but
so do space and time. In contrast, traditional Christian orthodoxy
maintains that space and time, along with everything else except
God, exist because God created them."[24]

There are several philosophical and scientific problems in
asserting that the series of events in the past is beginningless.
Philosopher William Lane Craig has developed four arguments -- two
philosophical and two scientific -- along these lines.[25] In this
article, I will apply Craig's second philosophical argument to the
Mormon concept of God:

(Premise 1) If the Mormon universe is true, then an
infinite number (or distance) has been traversed.

(Premise 2) It is impossible to traverse an infinite
number (or distance).

(Conclusion) Therefore, the Mormon universe is not true.

Premise 1 is certainly true. We have seen already that the
Mormons fully acknowledge that the past is infinite. And if it is
infinite, then certainly an infinite number of events has been
traversed to reach today.

But can an infinite number actually be traversed, as premise 2
denies? I think it is clear that it cannot. Consider the following
example.

Imagine that I planned to drive on Interstate 15 from my home
in Las Vegas to the Mormon temple in Salt Lake City. The distance
is 450 miles. All things being equal, I would eventually arrive in
Salt Lake. But suppose the distance was not 450 miles, but an
_infinite_ number. The fact is that I would never arrive in Salt
Lake, since it is by definition impossible to complete an infinite
count. An "infinite" is, by definition, _limitless._ Hence, a
_traversed_ distance by definition cannot be infinite.
Consequently, if I _did_ eventually arrive in Salt Lake City, this
would only prove that the distance I traveled was not infinite
after all. That is to say, since I could always travel one more
mile past my arrival point, arriving at _any_ point proves that the
distance I traveled was not infinite.

Now, let us apply this same logic to the Mormon universe. If
the universe had no beginning, then every event has been preceded
by an infinite number of events. But if one can never traverse an
infinite number, one could never have arrived at the present day,
since to do so would have involved traversing an infinite number of
days. In order to better understand this, philosopher J. P.
Moreland provides this example:

Suppose a person were to think backward through the
events in the past. In reality, time and the events
within it move in the other direction. But mentally he
can reverse that movement and count backward farther and
farther into the past. Now he will either come to a
beginning or he will not. If he comes to a beginning,
then the universe obviously had a beginning. But if he
never could, even in principle, reach a first moment,
then this means that it would be impossible to start with
the present and run backward through all of the events in
the history of the cosmos. Remember, if he did run
through all of them, he would reach a first member of the
series, and the finiteness of the past would be
established. In order to avoid this conclusion, one must
hold that, starting from the present, it is _impossible_
to go backward through all of the events in history.

But since events really move in the other direction,
this is equivalent to admitting that if there was no
beginning, the past could have never been exhaustively
traversed to reach the present moment.[26]

It is clear, then, that premises 1 and 2 are true. Given the
fact that the argument is valid, the conclusion therefore follows:
the Mormon universe is not true. And if the Mormon universe is not
true, then _the Mormon God does not exist,_ since his existence is
completely dependent on the existence of the Mormon universe.


*The Problem of Eternal Progression with an Infinite Past*

In this second objection, unlike the first, I am arguing that
even if we assume that the past series of events in time is
infinite, it is impossible for the Mormon doctrine of eternal
progression to be true. Although Dr. Parrish and I present three
arguments for this view in one of our books,[27] I will limit
myself to one argument in this article.

Mormon theology teaches that all intelligent beings have always
existed in some state or another and progress or move toward their
final eternal state. McConkie writes:

Endowed with agency and subject to eternal laws, man
began his progression and advancement in pre-existence,
his ultimate goal being to attain a state of glory,
honor, and exaltation like the Father of spirits....This
gradually unfolding course of advancement and experience
-- a course that began in a past eternity and will
continue in ages future -- is frequently referred to as
a course of _eternal progression._

It is important to know, however, that for the
overwhelming majority of mankind, eternal progression has
very definite limitations. In the full sense, eternal
progression is enjoyed only by those who receive
exaltation.[28]

Here is the problem: if the past series of events in time is
infinite, _we should have already reached our final state by now._
Yet, we have _not_ reached our final state. Therefore, the Mormon
world view is seriously flawed.

The Mormon may respond by arguing that we have not yet reached
our final state because there has not been enough time for it to
have transpired. But this is certainly no solution, since the
Mormon's own world view affirms that an infinite length of time has
already transpired. One cannot ask for more than an _infinite time_
to complete a task.

We must conclude, then, that since none of us has reached his
or her final state -- whether it be deity or some posthumous reward
or punishment -- the past series of events in time cannot be
infinite in the sense the Mormon church teaches. For even if we
assume that the past _is_ infinite, since we have not yet reached
our inevitable fate the Mormon world view is still false.


*The Problem of Achieving Omniscience by Eternal Progression*

McConkie explains the Mormon doctrine of _eternal progression_
when he writes that "during his [an evolving intelligence] earth
life he gains a mortal body, receives experience in earthly things,
and prepares for a future eternity after the resurrection when he
will continue to gain knowledge and intelligence" (D&C 130:18-19).
McConkie then states that the God of this world (Elohim) went
through the same process until he reached a point at which he was
"not progressing in knowledge, truth, virtue, wisdom, or any of the
attributes of godliness."[29] That is to say, the Mormon God
progressed from a point of _finite_ knowledge until he reached a
point of omniscience (_infinite_ knowledge). I believe, however,
that this view is incoherent. Consider the following inductively
strong argument:

(Premise 1) A being of limited knowledge gaining in
knowledge entails the increasing of a finite number.

(Premise 2) Starting from a finite number, it is
impossible to count to infinity.

(Premise 3) The Mormon view of eternal progression
entails a being of limited knowledge gaining in knowledge
until his knowledge is infinite (remember, the Mormon
universe contains an infinite number of things).

(Conclusion 1/Premise 4) Therefore, the Mormon view
cannot be true, for it is impossible -- given premises 1,
2, and 3 -- for eternal progression to entail that a
being of limited knowledge gains knowledge until his
knowledge is infinite.

(Premise 5) The Mormon doctrine of eternal progression is
entailed by the Mormon concept of God.

(Conclusion 2) Therefore, the Mormon concept of God is
incoherent.

Let us review each of these premises. Premise 1 is clearly
true: Mormon theology teaches that all beings are limited in
knowledge unless or until they attain godhood (_see_ D&C
130:18-19). Consequently, every time one of these beings acquires
a new item of knowledge on his or her journey to godhood it amounts
to an increase in a finite number of items of knowledge.

Premise 2 asserts that it is impossible to count to infinity if
one starts at a finite number. For example, if one begins counting
-- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and so on -- no matter when one stops counting
one can always add one more member to the count. But if one can
always add one more member, then one can never arrive at an
infinite number -- which is, by definition, _limitless._ To use an
example cited earlier, one can never arrive in a city an infinite
distance away, since it is impossible to complete a count (or a
distance) which has a limitless number of members.

Premise 3 -- that the Mormon view of eternal progression
entails that a being of limited knowledge gains in knowledge until
his knowledge is infinite (since there are an infinite number of
things for the Mormon god to know in his universe) -- is a doctrine
clearly taught by Joseph Smith:

Here, then, is eternal life -- to know the only wise and
true God; and you have to learn how to be gods
yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same
as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from
_one small degree to another, and from a small capacity
to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to
exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the
dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and
to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in
everlasting power_....When you climb up a ladder, you
must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until
you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles
of the gospel -- you must begin with the first, and go on
until you learn all the principles of exaltation.[30]
(emphasis added)

Therefore, given that premises 1, 2, and 3 are established as
valid, then conclusion 1 logically follows. And if conclusion 1 is
linked with premise 5 (a foundational belief of Mormon theism), the
final conclusion of the argument logically follows: _the Mormon
concept of God is incoherent._

Someone may argue that the Mormon God receives his infinite
knowledge from his own "Heavenly Father" God all at once when he
reaches a particular point in his progression. Although there are
a number of replies to this argument,[31] one is to point out that
this response does not _really_ explain how the Mormon God acquires
his infinite knowledge. It merely places the problem on the
shoulders of a _more distant_ God, who acquired _his_ supposed
omniscience from an _even more distant_ God, and so on into
infinity.

Appealing to an endless series of contingent beings as an
explanation for why all the Mormon gods are omniscient explains
nothing. Consider the following: If Being A does not have the
sufficient reason for his omniscience in the being who created him
(Being B), but requires other prior conditions (i.e., B receiving
his omniscience from his creator, Being C, and C receiving his
omniscience from his creator, Being D, _ad infinitum_), then the
necessary conditions for the omniscience of _any one_ of the gods
in the series are never fulfilled and can never be fulfilled in
principle. It follows from this that none of the gods in the Mormon
universe could have ever actually attained omniscience. Whether a
Mormon god "progresses" to infinite knowledge or receives it all at
once from his own superior God, the Mormon concept of God is
nevertheless incoherent.

In conclusion, I began this article by defining both the
Christian and Mormon concepts of God, showing them to be radically
different. I then presented three related philosophical criticisms
of the Mormon concept of God: (1) the problem of an infinite number
of past events; (2) the problem of eternal progression with an
infinite past; and (3) the problem of achieving omniscience by
eternal progression. I believe these criticisms clearly demonstrate
that philosophically the Mormon concept of God is irredeemably
flawed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
*Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D.* is Associate Professor of Philosophy,
Culture, and Law, and W. Howard Hoffman Scholar, Trinity Graduate
School, Trinity International University (Deerfield, IL), California
Campus. He is the author of five books,
including _The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis_
(Edwin Mellen Press, 1991) and _See the Gods Fall: A New Approach
to Christian Apologetics_ (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993), both of
which he coauthored with Dr. Stephen E. Parrish.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

*NOTES*

1 E.g., Walter R. Martin, _The Maze of Mormonism,_ 2d ed. (Santa
Ana, CA: Vision House, 1978); Jerald and Sandra Tanner, _The
Changing World of Mormonism_ (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980).
2 Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish, _The Mormon Concept
of God: A Philosophical Analysis,_ Studies in American Religion,
vol. 55 (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1991); Beckwith and
Parrish, _See the Gods Fall: A New Approach to Christian
Apologetics_ (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993);
Beckwith and Parrish, "The Mormon God, Omniscience, and Eternal
Progression," _Trinity Journal_ 12NS (Fall 1991):127-38.
3 Saint Augustine, _City of God_ (Garden City, NY: Image Books,
1958), 5.10.
4 Thomas Aquinas, _Summa Theologica,_ I, 25, 3, as contained in
_Introduction to Saint Thomas Aquinas,_ ed. Anton C. Pegis (New
York: The Modern Library, 1948), 231.
5 Some contemporary theists have denied this classical view of
omniscience, claiming that God does not know the future. They do
_not_ deny, however, that God knows everything. Like many Mormon
thinkers, they argue that since the future is not a _thing_
(because it has not happened yet), it is impossible for God to
know it. For a defense of this position, see Clark Pinnock, "God
Limits His Knowledge," in _Predestination and Free Will,_ eds.
David Basinger and Randall Basinger (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1986), 141-62. For the opposing view, _see_
the responses to Pinnock by John Feinberg, Norman L. Geisler,
and Bruce Reichenbach, 163-77.
6 Although all orthodox Christians agree that God is _eternally_
God, they dispute whether He exists _in_ time (i.e., the
temporal eternity view) or _out of_ time (i.e., the timeless
eternity view). _See_ Thomas V. Morris, _Our Idea of God: An
Introduction to Philosophical Theology_ (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1991), 119-38; and Ronald H. Nash, _The
Concept of God_ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 73-83.
7 It is true that _by_ His power God _grants_ power to His
creatures. But unlike this hypothetical other God, their limited
power is always subject to His unlimited power. Thus God
"possesses" all power in that all other power comes from, and is
under, His power.
8 Orthodox Christians all agree that God is in some sense
necessary, but they do not all agree on what that means. _See_
Morris, 107-13; and Nash, 106-13.
9 For example, Gary James Bergera, ed., _Line Upon Line: Essays in
Mormon Doctrine_ (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1989);
Sterling M. McMurrin, _The Philosophical Foundations of Mormon
Theology_ (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1959);
Sterling M. McMurrin, _The Theological Foundations of the Mormon
Religion_ (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1965);
Blake Ostler, "The Mormon Concept of God," _Dialogue: A Journal
of Mormon Thought 17_ (Summer 1984):65-93; David Lamont Paulsen,
_The Comparative Coherency of Mormon (Finitistic) and Classical
Theism_ (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1975); Kent
Robson, "Omnis on the Horizon," _Sunstone_ 8 (July-August
1983):21-23; Kent Robson, "Time and Omniscience in Mormon
Theology," _Sunstone_ 5 (May-June 1980):17-23; and O. Kendall
White, Jr., _Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy: A Crisis Theology_ (Salt Lake
City: Signature Books, 1987), 57-67.
10 James B. Allen, "Emergence of a Fundamental: The Expanding Role
of Joseph Smith's First Vision in Mormon Religious Thought,"
_Journal of Mormon History 7_ (1980):43-61; Thomas G. Alexander,
"The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine: From Joseph Smith to
Progression Theology," _Sunstone_ 5 (July/August 1980):32-39;
Boyd Kirkland, "The Development of the Mormon Doctrine of God,"
in Bergera, 35-52.
11 Neal A. Maxwell, "A More Determined Discipleship," _Ensign_
(February 1979):69-73; Neal A. Maxwell, _All These Things Shall
Give Thee Experience_ (Salt Lake City: Deseret Books, 1979).
12 Ostler cites four Mormon leaders who have held views consistent
with this view of omniscience: presidents Brigham Young, Wilford
Woodruff, and Lorenzo Snow; and scholar B. H. Roberts. _See_
Ostler, 76-78.
13 Hyrum L. Andrus, _God, Man and the Universe_ (Salt Lake City:
Bookcraft, 1968), 175.
14 D&C 93:29.
15 Bruce McConkie, _Mormon Doctrine,_ 2d ed. (Salt Lake City:
Bookcraft, 1966), 386-87, 516-17, 750-51.
16 _See_ Joseph Smith, _History of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints_ (hereafter HC), 7 vols., introduction and
notes, B. H. Roberts, 2d rev. ed. (Salt Lake City: The Deseret
Book Company, 1978), 6:305-12.
17 This chart, changed slightly for this article, originally
appeared in Beckwith and Parrish, _The Mormon Concept of God,_
38.
18 Ostler, 67.
19 Joseph Smith declares, "Hence, if Jesus had a Father, can we not
believe that _He_ had a Father also?...." (_HC,_ 6:476). _See_
also McConkie, 577.
20 _Ibid.,_ chapters 3 and 4; and Beckwith and Parrish, _See the
Gods Fall,_ chapter 3.
21 Joseph Fielding Smith, _Doctrines of Salvation,_ 3 vols. (Salt
Lake City: Bookcraft, 1959), 1:12.
22 _Journal of Discourses, by Brigham Young, President of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, His Two
Counsellors, the Twelve Apostles, and Others,_ 26 vols.,
reported by G. D. Watt (Liverpool: F. D. Richards, 1854-86),
5:19.
23 McConkie, 77.
24 White, 61.
25 William Lane Craig, _The Kalam Cosmological Argument_ (New York:
Macmillan Publishing Co., 1979). A popular version of his
arguments can found in his _The Existence of God and the
Beginning of the Universe_ (San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life
Publishers, 1979).
26 J. P. Moreland, _Scaling the Secular City_ (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1987), 29.
27 Beckwith and Parrish, _The Mormon Concept of God,_ 59-63.
28 McConkie, 238-39.
29 _Ibid.,_ 239.
30 _HC,_ 6:306-7.
31 _See_ Beckwith and Parrish, _The Mormon Concept of God,_ 75-76.

-------------

It's not NEARLY THE CULT that is fundamentalist and evangelical Christian
wacks!




"Oscar_Lives" wrote in message
news:RHHuf.672486$x96.571060@attbi_s72...
Most Christians who critique the Mormon view of God do so from
a strictly biblical perspective. Christian apologists have
correctly pointed out that Mormon theology conflicts with biblical
doctrine in a number of important areas, including the nature of
God, the plan of salvation, and the nature of man.[1]

Although the biblical approach should be the Christian's
primary focus, Dr. Stephen E. Parrish and I have suggested another
approach in several articles and books.[2] This approach focuses on
the _philosophical_ rather than the _biblical_ problems with the
Mormon concept of God.

In this article I will (1) compare and contrast the Christian
and Mormon concepts of God and (2) present three philosophical
problems with the Mormon view.


*THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPT OF GOD*

Christians claim that their concept of God is found in the
Bible. Known as _classical theism,_ this view of God has long been
considered the orthodox theistic position of the Western world.
Though there are numerous divine attributes that we could examine,
for our present purposes it is sufficient to say that the God of
classical theism is at least (1) personal and incorporeal (without
physical parts), (2) the Creator and Sustainer of everything else
that exists, (3) omnipotent (all-powerful), (4) omniscient
(all-knowing), (5) omnipresent (everywhere present), (6) immutable
(unchanging) and eternal, and (7) necessary and the only God.

Let us now briefly look at each of these attributes.

*1. Personal and Incorporeal.* According to Christian theism,
God is a personal being who has all the attributes that we may
expect from a perfect person: self-consciousness, the ability to
reason, know, love, communicate, and so forth. This is clearly how
God is described in the Scriptures (e.g., Gen. 17:11; Exod. 3:14;
Jer. 29:11).

God is also incorporeal. Unlike humans, God is not uniquely
associated with one physical entity (i.e., a body). This is why the
Bible refers to God as Spirit (John 4:24).

*2. The Creator and Sustainer of Everything Else that Exists.*
In classical theism, all reality is contingent on God -- that is,
all reality has come into existence and _continues_ to exist
because of Him. Unlike a god who forms the universe out of
preexistent matter, the God of classical theism created the
universe _ex nihilo_ (out of nothing). Consequently, it is on God
alone that everything in the universe depends for its existence
(_see_ Acts 17:25; Col. 1:16, 17; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 11:3; 2 Cor.
4:6; Rev. 4:11).

*3. Omnipotent.* God is also said to be omnipotent or
all-powerful. This should be understood to mean that God can do
anything that is (1) logically possible (_see_ below), and (2)
consistent with being a personal, incorporeal, omniscient,
omnipresent, immutable, wholly perfect, and necessary Creator.

Concerning the latter, these attributes are not _limitations_
of God's power, but _perfections._ They are attributes at their
infinitely highest level, which are essential to God's nature. For
example, since God is perfect, He cannot sin; because He is
personal, He is incapable of making Himself impersonal; because He
is omniscient, He cannot forget. All this is supported by the Bible
when its writers assert that God cannot sin (Mark 10:18; Heb.
6:18), cease to exist (Exod. 3:14; Mal. 3:6), or fail to know
something (Job 28:24; Ps. 139:17-18; Isa. 46:10a). Since God is a
perfect person, it is necessarily the case that He is incapable of
acting in a less than perfect way -- which would include sinning,
ceasing to exist, and being ignorant.

When the classical theist claims that God can only do what is
logically possible, he or she is claiming that God cannot do or
create what is logically _im_possible. Examples of logically
impossible entities include "married bachelors," "square circles,"
and "a brother who is an only child." But these are not _really_
entities; they are merely contrary terms that are strung together
and _appear_ to say something. Hence, the fact that God cannot do
the logically impossible does not in any way discount His
omnipotence.

Also counted among the things that are logically impossible for
God to do or create are those imperfect acts mentioned above which
a wholly perfect and immutable being cannot do -- such as sin, lack
omniscience, and/or cease to exist. Since God is a personal,
incorporeal, omniscient, omnipresent, immutable, wholly perfect,
and necessary Creator, it follows that any act _inconsistent_ with
these attributes would be necessarily (or logically) impossible for
God to perform. But this fact does not count against God's
omnipotence, since, as St. Augustine points out, "Neither do we
lessen [God's] power when we say He cannot die or be deceived. This
is the kind of inability which, if removed, would make God less
powerful than He is.... It is precisely because He is omnipotent
that for Him some things are impossible."[3]

But what about Luke 1:37, where we are told that "_nothing_ is
impossible with God?" (NIV) Addressing this question, St. Thomas
Aquinas points out that this verse is not talking about internally
contradictory or contrary "entities," since such "things" are not
really things at all. They are merely words strung together that
_appear_ to be saying something when in fact they are saying
nothing.[4] Hence, _everything_ is possible for God, but the
logically impossible is _not_ truly a _thing._

*4. Omniscient.* God is all-knowing, and His all-knowingness
encompasses the _past, present,_ and _future._[5] Concerning God's
unfathomable knowledge, the psalmist writes: "How precious to me
are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them! Were I to
count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand. When I awake,
I am still with you" (Ps. 139:17,18). Elsewhere he writes, "Great
is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit"
(147:5). The author of Job writes of God: "For he views the ends of
the earth and sees everything under the heavens" (Job 28:24).
Scripture also teaches that God has total knowledge of the past
(Isa. 41:22). Concerning the future, God says: "I make known the
end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say: 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please,'"
(Isa. 46:10). Elsewhere Isaiah quotes God as saying that
_knowledge_ (not opinion or highly probable guesses) of the future
is essential for deity (Isa. 41:21-24), something that
distinguished God from the many false gods of Isaiah's day.

*5. Omnipresent.* Logically following from God's omniscience,
incorporeality, omnipotence, and role as creator and sustainer of
the universe is His omnipresence. Since God is not limited by a
spatio-temporal body, knows everything immediately without benefit
of sensory organs, and sustains the existence of all that exists,
it follows that He is in some sense present everywhere. Certainly
it is the Bible's explicit teaching that God is omnipresent (Ps.
139:7-12; Jer. 23:23-24).

*6. Immutable and Eternal.* When a Christian says that God is
immutable and eternal, he or she is saying that God is _unchanging_
(Mal. 3:6; Heb. 6:17; Isa. 46:10b) and has _always existed_ as God
throughout all eternity (Ps. 90:2; Isa. 40:28; 43:12b, 13; 57:15a;
Rom. 1:20a; 1 Tim. 1:17).[6] There never was a time when God was
not God.

Although God certainly seems to change in response to how His
creatures behave -- such as in the case of the repenting Ninevites
-- His nature remains the same. No matter how the Ninevites would
have responded to Jonah's preaching, God's unchanging righteousness
would have remained the same: He is merciful to the repentant and
punishes the unrepentant. Hence, a God who is responsive to His
creatures is certainly consistent with, and seems to be entailed
in, an unchanging nature that is necessarily _personal._

*7. Necessary and the Only God.* The Bible teaches that
although humans at times worship some beings _as if_ these beings
were really gods (1 Cor. 8:4-6), there is only one true and living
God by nature (Isa. 43:10; 44:6, 8; 45:5, 18, 21, 22; Jer. 10:10;
Gal. 4:8; 1 Cor. 8:4-6; 1 Tim. 2:5; John 17:3; 1 Thess. 1:9). And
since the God of the Bible possesses _all_ power (_see_ above),
there cannot be any other God, for this would mean that two beings
possess all power. That, of course, is patently absurd, since if a
being possesses all of everything (in this case, power) there is,
by definition, nothing left for anyone else.[7]

Moreover, since everything that exists depends on God, and God
is unchanging and eternal, it follows that God cannot _not_ exist.
In other words, He is a _necessary_ being,[8] whereas everything
else is contingent.


*THE MORMON CONCEPT OF GOD*

Apart from biblical influences, the Mormon doctrine of God is
derived primarily from three works regarded by the Mormon church
(the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [LDS]) as inspired
scriptu The Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants
(hereafter D&C), and the Pearl of Great Price. (Most of these
writings were supposedly received through "revelation" by the
movement's founder and chief prophet, Joseph Smith.) It is also
found in Smith's other statements and doctrinal commentaries.
Although not regarded by the LDS church as scripture per se,
Smith's extracanonical pronouncements on doctrine are almost
universally accepted by the Mormon laity and leadership as
authoritative for Mormon theology.

The Mormon doctrine of God is also derived from statements and
writings of the church's ecclesiastical leaders -- especially its
presidents, who are considered divinely inspired prophets.
Additionally, we will consider the arguments of contemporary LDS
philosophers who have attempted to present Mormonism's doctrine of
God as philosophically coherent.[9]

Because there are so many doctrinal sources, it may appear
(with some justification) that it is difficult to determine
precisely what the Mormons believe about God. For example, the Book
of Mormon (first published in 1830) seems to teach a strongly
Judaic monotheism with modalistic (God is only one person
manifesting in three modes) overtones (_see_ Alma 11:26-31, 38;
Moroni 8:18; Mosiah 3:5-8; 7:27; 15:1-5), while the equally
authoritative Pearl of Great Price (first published in 1851)
clearly teaches that more than one God exists (_see_ Abraham 4-5).
This is why a number of Mormon scholars have argued that their
theology evolved from a traditional monotheism to a uniquely
American polytheism.[10]

Consequently, our chief concern will not be the historical
development of Mormon theism, but rather, the dominant concept of
God _currently_ held by the LDS church. Though there is certainly
disagreement among Mormon scholars concerning some precise points
of doctrine, I submit that the church currently teaches that God
is, in effect, (1) a contingent being, who was at one time not God;
(2) finite in _knowledge_ (not truly omniscient), _power_ (not
omnipotent), and _being_ (not omnipresent or immutable); (3) one of
many gods; (4) a corporeal (bodily) being, who physically dwells at
a particular spatio-temporal location and is therefore not
omnipresent like the classical God (respecting His intrinsic divine
nature -- we are not considering the Incarnation of the Son of God
here); and (5) a being who is subject to the laws and principles of
a beginningless universe with an infinite number of entities in it.

No doubt there are individual Mormons whose personal views of
God run contrary to the above five points. But since both the later
writings of Joseph Smith and current Mormon orthodoxy clearly
assert these five points, Mormons who dispute them are out of step
with their church.

The modern Mormon concept of God can best be grasped by
understanding the overall Mormon world view and how the deity fits
into it. Mormonism teaches that God the Father is a resurrected,
"exalted" human being named Elohim who was at one time _not_ God.
Rather, he was once a mortal man on another planet who, through
obedience to the precepts of _his_ God, eventually attained
exaltation, or godhood, himself through "eternal progression."

_Omniscience,_ according to Mormon theology, is one of the
attributes one attains when reaching godhood. Mormons appear to be
divided, however, on the meaning of omniscience. It seems that some
Mormons believe omniscience to mean that God has no _false_ beliefs
about the past, present, and future. This view is consistent with
the classical Christian view.[11]

On the other hand, the _dominant_ Mormon tradition teaches that
God only knows everything that can _possibly_ be known. But the
only things that can possibly be known, traditional Mormons say,
are the _present_ and the _past,_ since the former is occurring and
the latter has already occurred. Consequently, since the future is
not a "thing" and has never been _actual_ (and hence cannot
possibly be known), _God does not know the future._ Therefore, the
Mormon God is _omniscient_ in the sense that he knows everything
that can possibly be known, but he nevertheless increases in
knowledge as the future unfolds and becomes the present.[12] The
common ground of the two Mormon views is that God must, at minimum,
have complete and total knowledge of _everything_ in the past and
in the present.

Once Elohim attained godhood he then created this present world
by "organizing" both eternally preexistent, inorganic matter and
the preexistent primal intelligences from which human spirits are
made. Mormon scholar Hyrum L. Andrus explains:

Though man's spirit is organized from a pure and fine
substance which possesses certain properties of life,
Joseph Smith seems to have taught that within each
individual spirit there is a central primal intelligence
(a central directing principle of life), and that man's
central primal intelligence is a personal entity
possessing some degree of life and certain rudimentary
cognitive powers before the time the human spirit was
organized.[13]

For this reason, Joseph Smith wrote that "Man was also in the
beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not
created or made, neither indeed can be."[14] In other words, _man's
basic essence or primal intelligence is as eternal as God's._

The Mormon God, by organizing this world out of preexistent
matter, has granted these organized spirits the opportunity to
receive physical bodies, pass through mortality, and eventually
progress to godhood -- just as this opportunity was given him by
his Father God. Consequently, if human persons on earth faithfully
obey the precepts of Mormonism they, too, can attain godhood like
Elohim before them.

Based on the statements of Mormon leaders, some LDS scholars
contend that a premortal spirit is "organized" by God through
"spirit birth." In this process, human spirits are somehow
organized through literal sexual relations between our Heavenly
Father and one or more mother gods, whereby they are conceived and
born as spirit children _prior_ to entering the mortal realm
(although all human persons prior to spirit birth existed as
intelligences in some primal state of cognitive personal
existence).[15] Since the God of Mormonism was himself organized
(or spirit-birthed) by his God, who himself is a "creation" of yet
another God, and so on _ad infinitum,_ Mormonism therefore teaches
that the God over this world is a contingent being in an infinite
lineage of gods.[16] Thus, Mormonism is a polytheistic religion.

Comparing the Mormon concept with the classical Christian
concept of God (_see_ the chart for a breakdown of this
comparison[17]), Mormon philosopher Blake Ostler writes:

In contrast to the self-sufficient and solitary absolute
who creates _ex nihilo_ (out of nothing), the Mormon God
did not bring into being the ultimate constituents of the
cosmos -- neither its fundamental matter nor the
space/time matrix which defines it. Hence, unlike the
Necessary Being of classical theology who alone could not
_not_ exist and on which all else is contingent for
existence, the personal God of Mormonism confronts
uncreated realities which exist of metaphysical
necessity. Such realities include inherently
self-directing selves (intelligences), primordial
elements (mass/energy), the natural laws which structure
reality, and moral principles grounded in the intrinsic
value of selves and the requirements for growth and
happiness.[18]

Mormonism therefore teaches a metaphysical pluralism in which
certain basic realities have _always_ existed and are
indestructible even by God. In other words, _God came from the
universe; the universe did not come from God_ (although he did form
this planet out of preexistent matter).

It follows from what we have covered that in the Mormon
universe there are an infinite number of intelligent entities, such
as gods (exalted humans) and preexistent intelligences. If this is
denied, however, the Mormon must somehow reconcile a _finite_
number of these beings with an _infinite_ past. For instance, if
there is only a finite number of gods in a universe with an
infinite past, then there was a time when no gods existed (which
Joseph Smith denies[19]). For a finite number of gods coming into
being cannot be traced back infinitely. Moreover, if there is only
a finite number of gods, then the continually repeated scenario of
a god organizing intelligences so that they can begin their
progression to godhood would have never begun. This is so because
in Mormonism one needs a god in order for another to become a god,
and no being has always been a god.

Furthermore, if there were only a finite number of preexisting
intelligences in the infinite past, then there could no longer be
any preexistent intelligences who could become gods, since they
would all certainly be "used up" by now. An infinite amount of time
is certainly sufficient to use up a finite number of preexistent
intelligences. At any rate, in order for Mormonism to remain
consistent, it must teach that there is an _infinite_ number of
gods and preexistent intelligences in an infinitely large universe.

+----------------------------+-----------------------------+
| CHRISTIAN | MORMON |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------|
|1. Personal and incorporeal |1. Personal and corporeal |
| | (embodied) |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------|
|2. Creator and sustainer |2. Organizer of the world, |
| of contingent existence | but subject to the laws |
| | and principles of a |
| | beginningless universe |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------|
|3. Omnipotent |3. Limited in power |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------|
|4. Omniscient |4. Limited in knowledge |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------|
|5. Omnipresent in being |5. Localized in space |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------|
|6. Immutable and eternal |6. Mutable and not eternal |
| | (as God) |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------|
|7. Necessary and the |7. Contingent and one of |
| only God | many gods |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------|
| CONCEPT OF GOD | CONCEPT OF GOD |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------+


*SOME PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS WITH THE MORMON CONCEPT OF GOD*

In our two books, Dr. Parrish and I deal with a number of
philosophical problems with the Mormon concept of God.[20] In this
article I will present three of these. Because of space
constraints, however, I cannot reply to all the possible Mormon
responses to these problems. For this reason, I refer the reader to
the detailed replies in my two books.


*The Problem of an Infinite Number of Past Events*

It is evident from what we have covered that Mormonism teaches
that the past series of events in time is _infinite_ or
_beginningless._ Joseph Fielding Smith, the Mormon church's tenth
prophet and president, writes that Joseph Smith "taught that _our
Father had a Father and so on._"[21] Heber C. Kimball, who served
as First Counselor in the church's First Presidency, asserts that
"we shall go back to our Father and God, who is connected with _one
who is still farther back;_ and this Father is connected with _one
still further back, and so on...._"[22] Apostle and leading
doctrinal spokesman Bruce R. McConkie writes that "the elements
from which the creation took place are eternal and therefore had no
beginning."[23] O. Kendall White, a Mormon sociologist, points out
that because Mormon theology assumes metaphysical materialism it
"not only assumes that God and the elements exist necessarily, but
so do space and time. In contrast, traditional Christian orthodoxy
maintains that space and time, along with everything else except
God, exist because God created them."[24]

There are several philosophical and scientific problems in
asserting that the series of events in the past is beginningless.
Philosopher William Lane Craig has developed four arguments -- two
philosophical and two scientific -- along these lines.[25] In this
article, I will apply Craig's second philosophical argument to the
Mormon concept of God:

(Premise 1) If the Mormon universe is true, then an
infinite number (or distance) has been traversed.

(Premise 2) It is impossible to traverse an infinite
number (or distance).

(Conclusion) Therefore, the Mormon universe is not true.

Premise 1 is certainly true. We have seen already that the
Mormons fully acknowledge that the past is infinite. And if it is
infinite, then certainly an infinite number of events has been
traversed to reach today.

But can an infinite number actually be traversed, as premise 2
denies? I think it is clear that it cannot. Consider the following
example.

Imagine that I planned to drive on Interstate 15 from my home
in Las Vegas to the Mormon temple in Salt Lake City. The distance
is 450 miles. All things being equal, I would eventually arrive in
Salt Lake. But suppose the distance was not 450 miles, but an
_infinite_ number. The fact is that I would never arrive in Salt
Lake, since it is by definition impossible to complete an infinite
count. An "infinite" is, by definition, _limitless._ Hence, a
_traversed_ distance by definition cannot be infinite.
Consequently, if I _did_ eventually arrive in Salt Lake City, this
would only prove that the distance I traveled was not infinite
after all. That is to say, since I could always travel one more
mile past my arrival point, arriving at _any_ point proves that the
distance I traveled was not infinite.

Now, let us apply this same logic to the Mormon universe. If
the universe had no beginning, then every event has been preceded
by an infinite number of events. But if one can never traverse an
infinite number, one could never have arrived at the present day,
since to do so would have involved traversing an infinite number of
days. In order to better understand this, philosopher J. P.
Moreland provides this example:

Suppose a person were to think backward through the
events in the past. In reality, time and the events
within it move in the other direction. But mentally he
can reverse that movement and count backward farther and
farther into the past. Now he will either come to a
beginning or he will not. If he comes to a beginning,
then the universe obviously had a beginning. But if he
never could, even in principle, reach a first moment,
then this means that it would be impossible to start with
the present and run backward through all of the events in
the history of the cosmos. Remember, if he did run
through all of them, he would reach a first member of the
series, and the finiteness of the past would be
established. In order to avoid this conclusion, one must
hold that, starting from the present, it is _impossible_
to go backward through all of the events in history.

But since events really move in the other direction,
this is equivalent to admitting that if there was no
beginning, the past could have never been exhaustively
traversed to reach the present moment.[26]

It is clear, then, that premises 1 and 2 are true. Given the
fact that the argument is valid, the conclusion therefore follows:
the Mormon universe is not true. And if the Mormon universe is not
true, then _the Mormon God does not exist,_ since his existence is
completely dependent on the existence of the Mormon universe.


*The Problem of Eternal Progression with an Infinite Past*

In this second objection, unlike the first, I am arguing that
even if we assume that the past series of events in time is
infinite, it is impossible for the Mormon doctrine of eternal
progression to be true. Although Dr. Parrish and I present three
arguments for this view in one of our books,[27] I will limit
myself to one argument in this article.

Mormon theology teaches that all intelligent beings have always
existed in some state or another and progress or move toward their
final eternal state. McConkie writes:

Endowed with agency and subject to eternal laws, man
began his progression and advancement in pre-existence,
his ultimate goal being to attain a state of glory,
honor, and exaltation like the Father of spirits....This
gradually unfolding course of advancement and experience
-- a course that began in a past eternity and will
continue in ages future -- is frequently referred to as
a course of _eternal progression._

It is important to know, however, that for the
overwhelming majority of mankind, eternal progression has
very definite limitations. In the full sense, eternal
progression is enjoyed only by those who receive
exaltation.[28]

Here is the problem: if the past series of events in time is
infinite, _we should have already reached our final state by now._
Yet, we have _not_ reached our final state. Therefore, the Mormon
world view is seriously flawed.

The Mormon may respond by arguing that we have not yet reached
our final state because there has not been enough time for it to
have transpired. But this is certainly no solution, since the
Mormon's own world view affirms that an infinite length of time has
already transpired. One cannot ask for more than an _infinite time_
to complete a task.

We must conclude, then, that since none of us has reached his
or her final state -- whether it be deity or some posthumous reward
or punishment -- the past series of events in time cannot be
infinite in the sense the Mormon church teaches. For even if we
assume that the past _is_ infinite, since we have not yet reached
our inevitable fate the Mormon world view is still false.


*The Problem of Achieving Omniscience by Eternal Progression*

McConkie explains the Mormon doctrine of _eternal progression_
when he writes that "during his [an evolving intelligence] earth
life he gains a mortal body, receives experience in earthly things,
and prepares for a future eternity after the resurrection when he
will continue to gain knowledge and intelligence" (D&C 130:18-19).
McConkie then states that the God of this world (Elohim) went
through the same process until he reached a point at which he was
"not progressing in knowledge, truth, virtue, wisdom, or any of the
attributes of godliness."[29] That is to say, the Mormon God
progressed from a point of _finite_ knowledge until he reached a
point of omniscience (_infinite_ knowledge). I believe, however,
that this view is incoherent. Consider the following inductively
strong argument:

(Premise 1) A being of limited knowledge gaining in
knowledge entails the increasing of a finite number.

(Premise 2) Starting from a finite number, it is
impossible to count to infinity.

(Premise 3) The Mormon view of eternal progression
entails a being of limited knowledge gaining in knowledge
until his knowledge is infinite (remember, the Mormon
universe contains an infinite number of things).

(Conclusion 1/Premise 4) Therefore, the Mormon view
cannot be true, for it is impossible -- given premises 1,
2, and 3 -- for eternal progression to entail that a
being of limited knowledge gains knowledge until his
knowledge is infinite.

(Premise 5) The Mormon doctrine of eternal progression is
entailed by the Mormon concept of God.

(Conclusion 2) Therefore, the Mormon concept of God is
incoherent.

Let us review each of these premises. Premise 1 is clearly
true: Mormon theology teaches that all beings are limited in
knowledge unless or until they attain godhood (_see_ D&C
130:18-19). Consequently, every time one of these beings acquires
a new item of knowledge on his or her journey to godhood it amounts
to an increase in a finite number of items of knowledge.

Premise 2 asserts that it is impossible to count to infinity if
one starts at a finite number. For example, if one begins counting
-- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and so on -- no matter when one stops counting
one can always add one more member to the count. But if one can
always add one more member, then one can never arrive at an
infinite number -- which is, by definition, _limitless._ To use an
example cited earlier, one can never arrive in a city an infinite
distance away, since it is impossible to complete a count (or a
distance) which has a limitless number of members.

Premise 3 -- that the Mormon view of eternal progression
entails that a being of limited knowledge gains in knowledge until
his knowledge is infinite (since there are an infinite number of
things for the Mormon god to know in his universe) -- is a doctrine
clearly taught by Joseph Smith:

Here, then, is eternal life -- to know the only wise and
true God; and you have to learn how to be gods
yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same
as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from
_one small degree to another, and from a small capacity
to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to
exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the
dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and
to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in
everlasting power_....When you climb up a ladder, you
must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until
you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles
of the gospel -- you must begin with the first, and go on
until you learn all the principles of exaltation.[30]
(emphasis added)

Therefore, given that premises 1, 2, and 3 are established as
valid, then conclusion 1 logically follows. And if conclusion 1 is
linked with premise 5 (a foundational belief of Mormon theism), the
final conclusion of the argument logically follows: _the Mormon
concept of God is incoherent._

Someone may argue that the Mormon God receives his infinite
knowledge from his own "Heavenly Father" God all at once when he
reaches a particular point in his progression. Although there are
a number of replies to this argument,[31] one is to point out that
this response does not _really_ explain how the Mormon God acquires
his infinite knowledge. It merely places the problem on the
shoulders of a _more distant_ God, who acquired _his_ supposed
omniscience from an _even more distant_ God, and so on into
infinity.

Appealing to an endless series of contingent beings as an
explanation for why all the Mormon gods are omniscient explains
nothing. Consider the following: If Being A does not have the
sufficient reason for his omniscience in the being who created him
(Being B), but requires other prior conditions (i.e., B receiving
his omniscience from his creator, Being C, and C receiving his
omniscience from his creator, Being D, _ad infinitum_), then the
necessary conditions for the omniscience of _any one_ of the gods
in the series are never fulfilled and can never be fulfilled in
principle. It follows from this that none of the gods in the Mormon
universe could have ever actually attained omniscience. Whether a
Mormon god "progresses" to infinite knowledge or receives it all at
once from his own superior God, the Mormon concept of God is
nevertheless incoherent.

In conclusion, I began this article by defining both the
Christian and Mormon concepts of God, showing them to be radically
different. I then presented three related philosophical criticisms
of the Mormon concept of God: (1) the problem of an infinite number
of past events; (2) the problem of eternal progression with an
infinite past; and (3) the problem of achieving omniscience by
eternal progression. I believe these criticisms clearly demonstrate
that philosophically the Mormon concept of God is irredeemably
flawed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
*Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D.* is Associate Professor of Philosophy,
Culture, and Law, and W. Howard Hoffman Scholar, Trinity Graduate
School, Trinity International University (Deerfield, IL), California
Campus. He is the author of five books,
including _The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis_
(Edwin Mellen Press, 1991) and _See the Gods Fall: A New Approach
to Christian Apologetics_ (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993), both of
which he coauthored with Dr. Stephen E. Parrish.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

*NOTES*

1 E.g., Walter R. Martin, _The Maze of Mormonism,_ 2d ed. (Santa
Ana, CA: Vision House, 1978); Jerald and Sandra Tanner, _The
Changing World of Mormonism_ (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980).
2 Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish, _The Mormon Concept
of God: A Philosophical Analysis,_ Studies in American Religion,
vol. 55 (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1991); Beckwith and
Parrish, _See the Gods Fall: A New Approach to Christian
Apologetics_ (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993);
Beckwith and Parrish, "The Mormon God, Omniscience, and Eternal
Progression," _Trinity Journal_ 12NS (Fall 1991):127-38.
3 Saint Augustine, _City of God_ (Garden City, NY: Image Books,
1958), 5.10.
4 Thomas Aquinas, _Summa Theologica,_ I, 25, 3, as contained in
_Introduction to Saint Thomas Aquinas,_ ed. Anton C. Pegis (New
York: The Modern Library, 1948), 231.
5 Some contemporary theists have denied this classical view of
omniscience, claiming that God does not know the future. They do
_not_ deny, however, that God knows everything. Like many Mormon
thinkers, they argue that since the future is not a _thing_
(because it has not happened yet), it is impossible for God to
know it. For a defense of this position, see Clark Pinnock, "God
Limits His Knowledge," in _Predestination and Free Will,_ eds.
David Basinger and Randall Basinger (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1986), 141-62. For the opposing view, _see_
the responses to Pinnock by John Feinberg, Norman L. Geisler,
and Bruce Reichenbach, 163-77.
6 Although all orthodox Christians agree that God is _eternally_
God, they dispute whether He exists _in_ time (i.e., the
temporal eternity view) or _out of_ time (i.e., the timeless
eternity view). _See_ Thomas V. Morris, _Our Idea of God: An
Introduction to Philosophical Theology_ (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1991), 119-38; and Ronald H. Nash, _The
Concept of God_ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 73-83.
7 It is true that _by_ His power God _grants_ power to His
creatures. But unlike this hypothetical other God, their limited
power is always subject to His unlimited power. Thus God
"possesses" all power in that all other power comes from, and is
under, His power.
8 Orthodox Christians all agree that God is in some sense
necessary, but they do not all agree on what that means. _See_
Morris, 107-13; and Nash, 106-13.
9 For example, Gary James Bergera, ed., _Line Upon Line: Essays in
Mormon Doctrine_ (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 1989);
Sterling M. McMurrin, _The Philosophical Foundations of Mormon
Theology_ (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1959);
Sterling M. McMurrin, _The Theological Foundations of the Mormon
Religion_ (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1965);
Blake Ostler, "The Mormon Concept of God," _Dialogue: A Journal
of Mormon Thought 17_ (Summer 1984):65-93; David Lamont Paulsen,
_The Comparative Coherency of Mormon (Finitistic) and Classical
Theism_ (Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1975); Kent
Robson, "Omnis on the Horizon," _Sunstone_ 8 (July-August
1983):21-23; Kent Robson, "Time and Omniscience in Mormon
Theology," _Sunstone_ 5 (May-June 1980):17-23; and O. Kendall
White, Jr., _Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy: A Crisis Theology_ (Salt Lake
City: Signature Books, 1987), 57-67.
10 James B. Allen, "Emergence of a Fundamental: The Expanding Role
of Joseph Smith's First Vision in Mormon Religious Thought,"
_Journal of Mormon History 7_ (1980):43-61; Thomas G. Alexander,
"The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine: From Joseph Smith to
Progression Theology," _Sunstone_ 5 (July/August 1980):32-39;
Boyd Kirkland, "The Development of the Mormon Doctrine of God,"
in Bergera, 35-52.
11 Neal A. Maxwell, "A More Determined Discipleship," _Ensign_
(February 1979):69-73; Neal A. Maxwell, _All These Things Shall
Give Thee Experience_ (Salt Lake City: Deseret Books, 1979).
12 Ostler cites four Mormon leaders who have held views consistent
with this view of omniscience: presidents Brigham Young, Wilford
Woodruff, and Lorenzo Snow; and scholar B. H. Roberts. _See_
Ostler, 76-78.
13 Hyrum L. Andrus, _God, Man and the Universe_ (Salt Lake City:
Bookcraft, 1968), 175.
14 D&C 93:29.
15 Bruce McConkie, _Mormon Doctrine,_ 2d ed. (Salt Lake City:
Bookcraft, 1966), 386-87, 516-17, 750-51.
16 _See_ Joseph Smith, _History of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints_ (hereafter HC), 7 vols., introduction and
notes, B. H. Roberts, 2d rev. ed. (Salt Lake City: The Deseret
Book Company, 1978), 6:305-12.
17 This chart, changed slightly for this article, originally
appeared in Beckwith and Parrish, _The Mormon Concept of God,_
38.
18 Ostler, 67.
19 Joseph Smith declares, "Hence, if Jesus had a Father, can we not
believe that _He_ had a Father also?...." (_HC,_ 6:476). _See_
also McConkie, 577.
20 _Ibid.,_ chapters 3 and 4; and Beckwith and Parrish, _See the
Gods Fall,_ chapter 3.
21 Joseph Fielding Smith, _Doctrines of Salvation,_ 3 vols. (Salt
Lake City: Bookcraft, 1959), 1:12.
22 _Journal of Discourses, by Brigham Young, President of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, His Two
Counsellors, the Twelve Apostles, and Others,_ 26 vols.,
reported by G. D. Watt (Liverpool: F. D. Richards, 1854-86),
5:19.
23 McConkie, 77.
24 White, 61.
25 William Lane Craig, _The Kalam Cosmological Argument_ (New York:
Macmillan Publishing Co., 1979). A popular version of his
arguments can found in his _The Existence of God and the
Beginning of the Universe_ (San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life
Publishers, 1979).
26 J. P. Moreland, _Scaling the Secular City_ (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1987), 29.
27 Beckwith and Parrish, _The Mormon Concept of God,_ 59-63.
28 McConkie, 238-39.
29 _Ibid.,_ 239.
30 _HC,_ 6:306-7.
31 _See_ Beckwith and Parrish, _The Mormon Concept of God,_ 75-76.

-------------

Thank god I'm an atheist.






On 1/3/2006 9:56:35 PM, "Oscar_Lives" wrote:
Most Christians who critique the Mormon view of God do so from
a strictly biblical perspective. Christian apologists have
correctly pointed out that Mormon theology conflicts with biblical
doctrine in a number of important areas, including the nature of
God, the plan of salvation, and the nature of man.[1]

Although the biblical approach should be the Christian's
primary focus, Dr. Stephen E. Parrish and I have suggested another
approach in several articles and books.[2] This approach focuses on
the _philosophical_ rather than the _biblical_ problems with the
Mormon concept of God.

In this article I will (1) compare and contrast the Christian
and Mormon concepts of God and (2) present three philosophical
problems with the Mormon view.


*THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPT OF GOD*

Christians claim that their concept of God is found in the
Bible. Known as _classical theism,_ this view of God has long been
considered the orthodox theistic position of the Western world.
Though there are numerous divine attributes that we could examine,
for our present purposes it is sufficient to say that the God of
classical theism is at least (1) personal and incorporeal (without
physical parts), (2) the Creator and Sustainer of everything else
that exists, (3) omnipotent (all-powerful), (4) omniscient
(all-knowing), (5) omnipresent (everywhere present), (6) immutable
(unchanging) and eternal, and (7) necessary and the only God.

Let us now briefly look at each of these attributes.

*1. Personal and Incorporeal.* According to Christian theism,
God is a personal being who has all the attributes that we may
expect from a perfect person: self-consciousness, the ability to
reason, know, love, communicate, and so forth. This is clearly how
God is described in the Scriptures (e.g., Gen. 17:11; Exod. 3:14;
Jer. 29:11).

God is also incorporeal. Unlike humans, God is not uniquely
associated with one physical entity (i.e., a body). This is why the
Bible refers to God as Spirit (John 4:24).

*2. The Creator and Sustainer of Everything Else that Exists.*
In classical theism, all reality is contingent on God -- that is,
all reality has come into existence and _continues_ to exist
because of Him. Unlike a god who forms the universe out of
preexistent matter, the God of classical theism created the
universe _ex nihilo_ (out of nothing). Consequently, it is on God
alone that everything in the universe depends for its existence
(_see_ Acts 17:25; Col. 1:16, 17; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 11:3; 2 Cor.
4:6; Rev. 4:11).

*3. Omnipotent.* God is also said to be omnipotent or
all-powerful. This should be understood to mean that God can do
anything that is (1) logically possible (_see_ below), and (2)
consistent with being a personal, incorporeal, omniscient,
omnipresent, immutable, wholly perfect, and necessary Creator.

Concerning the latter, these attributes are not _limitations_
of God's power, but _perfections._ They are attributes at their
infinitely highest level, which are essential to God's nature. For
example, since God is perfect, He cannot sin; because He is
personal, He is incapable of making Himself impersonal; because He
is omniscient, He cannot forget. All this is supported by the Bible
when its writers assert that God cannot sin (Mark 10:18; Heb.
6:18), cease to exist (Exod. 3:14; Mal. 3:6), or fail to know
something (Job 28:24; Ps. 139:17-18; Isa. 46:10a). Since God is a
perfect person, it is necessarily the case that He is incapable of
acting in a less than perfect way -- which would include sinning,
ceasing to exist, and being ignorant.

When the classical theist claims that God can only do what is
logically possible, he or she is claiming that God cannot do or
create what is logically _im_possible. Examples of logically
impossible entities include "married bachelors," "square circles,"
and "a brother who is an only child." But these are not _really_
entities; they are merely contrary terms that are strung together
and _appear_ to say something. Hence, the fact that God cannot do
the logically impossible does not in any way discount His
omnipotence.

Also counted among the things that are logically impossible for
God to do or create are those imperfect acts mentioned above which
a wholly perfect and immutable being cannot do -- such as sin, lack
omniscience, and/or cease to exist. Since God is a personal,
incorporeal, omniscient, omnipresent, immutable, wholly perfect,
and necessary Creator, it follows that any act _inconsistent_ with
these attributes would be necessarily (or logically) impossible for
God to perform. But this fact does not count against God's
omnipotence, since, as St. Augustine points out, "Neither do we
lessen [God's] power when we say He cannot die or be deceived. This
is the kind of inability which, if removed, would make God less
powerful than He is.... It is precisely because He is omnipotent
that for Him some things are impossible."[3]

But what about Luke 1:37, where we are told that "_nothing_ is
impossible with God?" (NIV) Addressing this question, St. Thomas
Aquinas points out that this verse is not talking about internally
contradictory or contrary "entities," since such "things" are not
really things at all. They are merely words strung together that
_appear_ to be saying something when in fact they are saying
nothing.[4] Hence, _everything_ is possible for God, but the
logically impossible is _not_ truly a _thing._

*4. Omniscient.* God is all-knowing, and His all-knowingness
encompasses the _past, present,_ and _future._[5] Concerning God's
unfathomable knowledge, the psalmist writes: "How precious to me
are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them! Were I to
count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand. When I awake,
I am still with you" (Ps. 139:17,18). Elsewhere he writes, "Great
is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit"
(147:5). The author of Job writes of God: "For he views the ends of
the earth and sees everything under the heavens" (Job 28:24).
Scripture also teaches that God has total knowledge of the past
(Isa. 41:22). Concerning the future, God says: "I make known the
end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say: 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please,'"
(Isa. 46:10). Elsewhere Isaiah quotes God as saying that
_knowledge_ (not opinion or highly probable guesses) of the future
is essential for deity (Isa. 41:21-24), something that
distinguished God from the many false gods of Isaiah's day.

*5. Omnipresent.* Logically following from God's omniscience,
incorporeality, omnipotence, and role as creator and sustainer of
the universe is His omnipresence. Since God is not limited by a
spatio-temporal body, knows everything immediately without benefit
of sensory organs, and sustains the existence of all that exists,
it follows that He is in some sense present everywhere. Certainly
it is the Bible's explicit teaching that God is omnipresent (Ps.
139:7-12; Jer. 23:23-24).

*6. Immutable and Eternal.* When a Christian says that God is
immutable and eternal, he or she is saying that God is _unchanging_
(Mal. 3:6; Heb. 6:17; Isa. 46:10b) and has _always existed_ as God
throughout all eternity (Ps. 90:2; Isa. 40:28; 43:12b, 13; 57:15a;
Rom. 1:20a; 1 Tim. 1:17).[6] There never was a time when God was
not God.

Although God certainly seems to change in response to how His
creatures behave -- such as in the case of the repenting Ninevites


--
John

I have an idea. Let's give Oscar what he wants by reposting his drivel
along with our one sentence responses.

****ing morons.

Steve

LOL!!!!


"John" wrote in message
...
Thank god I'm an atheist.






On 1/3/2006 9:56:35 PM, "Oscar_Lives" wrote:
Most Christians who critique the Mormon view of God do so from
a strictly biblical perspective. Christian apologists have
correctly pointed out that Mormon theology conflicts with biblical
doctrine in a number of important areas, including the nature of
God, the plan of salvation, and the nature of man.[1]

Although the biblical approach should be the Christian's
primary focus, Dr. Stephen E. Parrish and I have suggested another
approach in several articles and books.[2] This approach focuses on
the _philosophical_ rather than the _biblical_ problems with the
Mormon concept of God.

In this article I will (1) compare and contrast the Christian
and Mormon concepts of God and (2) present three philosophical
problems with the Mormon view.


*THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPT OF GOD*

Christians claim that their concept of God is found in the
Bible. Known as _classical theism,_ this view of God has long been
considered the orthodox theistic position of the Western world.
Though there are numerous divine attributes that we could examine,
for our present purposes it is sufficient to say that the God of
classical theism is at least (1) personal and incorporeal (without
physical parts), (2) the Creator and Sustainer of everything else
that exists, (3) omnipotent (all-powerful), (4) omniscient
(all-knowing), (5) omnipresent (everywhere present), (6) immutable
(unchanging) and eternal, and (7) necessary and the only God.

Let us now briefly look at each of these attributes.

*1. Personal and Incorporeal.* According to Christian theism,
God is a personal being who has all the attributes that we may
expect from a perfect person: self-consciousness, the ability to
reason, know, love, communicate, and so forth. This is clearly how
God is described in the Scriptures (e.g., Gen. 17:11; Exod. 3:14;
Jer. 29:11).

God is also incorporeal. Unlike humans, God is not uniquely
associated with one physical entity (i.e., a body). This is why the
Bible refers to God as Spirit (John 4:24).

*2. The Creator and Sustainer of Everything Else that Exists.*
In classical theism, all reality is contingent on God -- that is,
all reality has come into existence and _continues_ to exist
because of Him. Unlike a god who forms the universe out of
preexistent matter, the God of classical theism created the
universe _ex nihilo_ (out of nothing). Consequently, it is on God
alone that everything in the universe depends for its existence
(_see_ Acts 17:25; Col. 1:16, 17; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 11:3; 2 Cor.
4:6; Rev. 4:11).

*3. Omnipotent.* God is also said to be omnipotent or
all-powerful. This should be understood to mean that God can do
anything that is (1) logically possible (_see_ below), and (2)
consistent with being a personal, incorporeal, omniscient,
omnipresent, immutable, wholly perfect, and necessary Creator.

Concerning the latter, these attributes are not _limitations_
of God's power, but _perfections._ They are attributes at their
infinitely highest level, which are essential to God's nature. For
example, since God is perfect, He cannot sin; because He is
personal, He is incapable of making Himself impersonal; because He
is omniscient, He cannot forget. All this is supported by the Bible
when its writers assert that God cannot sin (Mark 10:18; Heb.
6:18), cease to exist (Exod. 3:14; Mal. 3:6), or fail to know
something (Job 28:24; Ps. 139:17-18; Isa. 46:10a). Since God is a
perfect person, it is necessarily the case that He is incapable of
acting in a less than perfect way -- which would include sinning,
ceasing to exist, and being ignorant.

When the classical theist claims that God can only do what is
logically possible, he or she is claiming that God cannot do or
create what is logically _im_possible. Examples of logically
impossible entities include "married bachelors," "square circles,"
and "a brother who is an only child." But these are not _really_
entities; they are merely contrary terms that are strung together
and _appear_ to say something. Hence, the fact that God cannot do
the logically impossible does not in any way discount His
omnipotence.

Also counted among the things that are logically impossible for
God to do or create are those imperfect acts mentioned above which
a wholly perfect and immutable being cannot do -- such as sin, lack
omniscience, and/or cease to exist. Since God is a personal,
incorporeal, omniscient, omnipresent, immutable, wholly perfect,
and necessary Creator, it follows that any act _inconsistent_ with
these attributes would be necessarily (or logically) impossible for
God to perform. But this fact does not count against God's
omnipotence, since, as St. Augustine points out, "Neither do we
lessen [God's] power when we say He cannot die or be deceived. This
is the kind of inability which, if removed, would make God less
powerful than He is.... It is precisely because He is omnipotent
that for Him some things are impossible."[3]

But what about Luke 1:37, where we are told that "_nothing_ is
impossible with God?" (NIV) Addressing this question, St. Thomas
Aquinas points out that this verse is not talking about internally
contradictory or contrary "entities," since such "things" are not
really things at all. They are merely words strung together that
_appear_ to be saying something when in fact they are saying
nothing.[4] Hence, _everything_ is possible for God, but the
logically impossible is _not_ truly a _thing._

*4. Omniscient.* God is all-knowing, and His all-knowingness
encompasses the _past, present,_ and _future._[5] Concerning God's
unfathomable knowledge, the psalmist writes: "How precious to me
are your thoughts, O God! How vast is the sum of them! Were I to
count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand. When I awake,
I am still with you" (Ps. 139:17,18). Elsewhere he writes, "Great
is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit"
(147:5). The author of Job writes of God: "For he views the ends of
the earth and sees everything under the heavens" (Job 28:24).
Scripture also teaches that God has total knowledge of the past
(Isa. 41:22). Concerning the future, God says: "I make known the
end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say: 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please,'"
(Isa. 46:10). Elsewhere Isaiah quotes God as saying that
_knowledge_ (not opinion or highly probable guesses) of the future
is essential for deity (Isa. 41:21-24), something that
distinguished God from the many false gods of Isaiah's day.

*5. Omnipresent.* Logically following from God's omniscience,
incorporeality, omnipotence, and role as creator and sustainer of
the universe is His omnipresence. Since God is not limited by a
spatio-temporal body, knows everything immediately without benefit
of sensory organs, and sustains the existence of all that exists,
it follows that He is in some sense present everywhere. Certainly
it is the Bible's explicit teaching that God is omnipresent (Ps.
139:7-12; Jer. 23:23-24).

*6. Immutable and Eternal.* When a Christian says that God is
immutable and eternal, he or she is saying that God is _unchanging_
(Mal. 3:6; Heb. 6:17; Isa. 46:10b) and has _always existed_ as God
throughout all eternity (Ps. 90:2; Isa. 40:28; 43:12b, 13; 57:15a;
Rom. 1:20a; 1 Tim. 1:17).[6] There never was a time when God was
not God.

Although God certainly seems to change in response to how His
creatures behave -- such as in the case of the repenting Ninevites


--
John

"Oscar_Lives" wrote in message
news:RHHuf.672486$x96.571060@attbi_s72...
Most Christians who critique the Mormon view of God do so from
a strictly biblical perspective. Christian apologists have

SNIP


It's 'Mormonism' not 'Mormon' ya dolt. One is a practice the other is a
person. If you're gonna be a biggot at least be accurate - sheesh!!!

"Steve Scott" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 11:32:20 -0500, "C & E"
wrote:


"Oscar_Lives" wrote in message
news:RHHuf.672486$x96.571060@attbi_s72...
Most Christians who critique the Mormon view of God do so from
a strictly biblical perspective. Christian apologists have

SNIP


It's 'Mormonism' not 'Mormon' ya dolt. One is a practice the other is a
person. If you're gonna be a biggot at least be accurate - sheesh!!!

Uhh, it's bigot, not biggot, if you care about accuracy.

Never fails, when someone is correcting someone's literacy they get it wrong
also... LOL

"ya" is not considered a word either... Doh!


--
I filled out an application that said,
'In Case of Emergency Notify.' I wrote
'Doctor.' What's my mother going to
do? --Steven Wright

Oscar_Lives wrote:
Most Christians who critique the Mormon view of God do so from
a strictly biblical perspective. Christian apologists have
correctly pointed out that Mormon theology conflicts with biblical
doctrine in a number of important areas, including the nature of
God, the plan of salvation, and the nature of man.[1]

snip rest of autobot reposting of something this complete and utter
idiot has posted in its entirety several times, often within the SAME
THREAD, and that I, to my utter shame, actually answered once, point by
point. Man, I will NEVER learn not to feed the trolls

Regarding the title of this thread: Mormon is/was a man, or, if you
don't believe that he existed, a fictional character in a book. Either
way, he can't be a cult. Mormon ISM can be.

In fact, it is a cult. So, by the way, is Catholicism, every single
sect of Protestantism, and every other 'ism' there is out there. You
might try looking up the definition of a word before you pull something
this utterly brainless: cult: a system of community of religious
worship and ritual. Another definition of 'cult' that is nonreligious
is " obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a
person, principle, or thing."

Of course, I like the following definitions much better:
bullet

"...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion;
and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect;
but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult." Leo Pfeffer. A humorous
quotation, but one that is uncomfortably close to reality.
bullet

"Cults are claimed to be deceitful. They are claimed to be harmful to
their members. They are claimed to be undermining American values.
Cults are claimed to be just about every bad thing in the book these
days, and with the pervasive images of Manson and Jim Jones hanging
over us, any group that is called a cult is immediately associated with
those two people." J. Gordon Melton.
bullet

"My working definition of a cult is a group that you don't like, and I
say that somewhat facetiously, but at the same time, in fact, that is
my working definition of a cult. It is a group that somebody doesn't
like. It is a derogatory term, and I have never seen it redeemed from
the derogatory connotations that it picked up in the sociological
literature in the 1930s." J. Gordon Melton.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm

In other words, you blithering idiot, "cult" is simply you being
childish and letting us know that you don't like the Mormons. We get
that already.

So I have a suggestion for you; go fix somebody's airconditioner.
Hopefully not mine; I wouldn't let you within fifty feet of my swamp
cooler and I SURE wouldn't allow you anywhere near a pipe that carried
natural gas. You would overload the system.

Diana

She kicked your ass, dude!

hehe



"dianaiad" wrote in message
oups.com...

Oscar_Lives wrote:
Most Christians who critique the Mormon view of God do so from
a strictly biblical perspective. Christian apologists have
correctly pointed out that Mormon theology conflicts with biblical
doctrine in a number of important areas, including the nature of
God, the plan of salvation, and the nature of man.[1]

snip rest of autobot reposting of something this complete and utter
idiot has posted in its entirety several times, often within the SAME
THREAD, and that I, to my utter shame, actually answered once, point by
point. Man, I will NEVER learn not to feed the trolls

Regarding the title of this thread: Mormon is/was a man, or, if you
don't believe that he existed, a fictional character in a book. Either
way, he can't be a cult. Mormon ISM can be.

In fact, it is a cult. So, by the way, is Catholicism, every single
sect of Protestantism, and every other 'ism' there is out there. You
might try looking up the definition of a word before you pull something
this utterly brainless: cult: a system of community of religious
worship and ritual. Another definition of 'cult' that is nonreligious
is " obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a
person, principle, or thing."

Of course, I like the following definitions much better:
bullet

"...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion;
and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect;
but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult." Leo Pfeffer. A humorous
quotation, but one that is uncomfortably close to reality.
bullet

"Cults are claimed to be deceitful. They are claimed to be harmful to
their members. They are claimed to be undermining American values.
Cults are claimed to be just about every bad thing in the book these
days, and with the pervasive images of Manson and Jim Jones hanging
over us, any group that is called a cult is immediately associated with
those two people." J. Gordon Melton.
bullet

"My working definition of a cult is a group that you don't like, and I
say that somewhat facetiously, but at the same time, in fact, that is
my working definition of a cult. It is a group that somebody doesn't
like. It is a derogatory term, and I have never seen it redeemed from
the derogatory connotations that it picked up in the sociological
literature in the 1930s." J. Gordon Melton.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm

In other words, you blithering idiot, "cult" is simply you being
childish and letting us know that you don't like the Mormons. We get
that already.

So I have a suggestion for you; go fix somebody's airconditioner.
Hopefully not mine; I wouldn't let you within fifty feet of my swamp
cooler and I SURE wouldn't allow you anywhere near a pipe that carried
natural gas. You would overload the system.

Diana

What's strangely funny is how Fred doesn't have even a hint of the
definition of a cult, and if he did, he would be embarrassed on just how
silly his post sounds. The other six posts you've made in the last year also
amazes me on just how void a human can be of actual knowledge towards any
subject and then come on a group and remove all doubt that your a completely
void of an educated guess of this subject.... Amazing, you must be a regular
that hides behind a different name when things of religion come up.... Not
one post about HVAC, only aggressive replies towards religion, AND they are
all humorously dangerous of total ignorance.

What's also funny is just how shallow Steves B.'s replies really are. He
never shows up until someone posts something about God and then suddenly
appears out of nowhere! This is true also with Fred. Therefore, I assume
they are regular(s) that can't handle being man enough to take the heat of
their foolish, childish and non educated and ridiculous posts.

Steve B. talks about drivel, while in fact, Steve's posts are the best
example of explaining Absolute Zero, They required no energy in thought
processes, no energy for research or developmental thinking and reasoning.
Then he ignorantly calls everyone else a moron... We should include your
posts in the HVAC book of definitions of what Absolute Zero is!

I don't know why Steve B and Fred have so much hate towards those who do
believe in a higher authority. Possibly because the Bible teaches that those
who are effeminate 'shall NOT enter into the kingdom of God..."

Steve claims vehemently that there is 'is no God', I claim that you have
no intelligence, my argument is just as valid as yours since neither have
any foundational absolutes to base facts upon. The Bible states, "The FOOL
has said in his heart, there is NO God." and your posts are making God out
to be much more intelligent than you two. As a matter of fact, even the
devil believes there is a God, so, I guess you are a little less than
he...... how said, a tiny little person with absolutely zero input towards
anything good or constructive, and everything to be ashamed of. Its funny
how those who contribute nothing always try to convey that they are the
masters of truth and contributors to society, but a Google search reveals
that you contribute nothing constructive or adhesive, let alone intelligent
in terms of your replies. Its like you tear out the definitions of words in
hopes others will think your definitions are the correct ones.

There is no doubt that these replies are from at least one regular, I think
possibly two. And what's sad is, they don't understand why others here don't
like them.... another classical case of being the fool.




"Steve B" wrote in message
newsjIuf.6776$JT.1498@fed1read06...
I have an idea. Let's give Oscar what he wants by reposting his drivel
along with our one sentence responses.

****ing morons.

Steve

dianaiad wrote:

Oscar_Lives wrote:

Most Christians who critique the Mormon view of God do so from
a strictly biblical perspective. Christian apologists have
correctly pointed out that Mormon theology conflicts with biblical
doctrine in a number of important areas, including the nature of
God, the plan of salvation, and the nature of man.[1]


snip rest of autobot reposting of something this complete and utter
idiot has posted in its entirety several times, often within the SAME
THREAD, and that I, to my utter shame, actually answered once, point by
point. Man, I will NEVER learn not to feed the trolls

Regarding the title of this thread: Mormon is/was a man, or, if you
don't believe that he existed, a fictional character in a book. Either
way, he can't be a cult. Mormon ISM can be.

In fact, it is a cult. So, by the way, is Catholicism, every single
sect of Protestantism, and every other 'ism' there is out there. You
might try looking up the definition of a word before you pull something
this utterly brainless: cult: a system of community of religious
worship and ritual. Another definition of 'cult' that is nonreligious
is " obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a
person, principle, or thing."

Of course, I like the following definitions much better:
bullet

"...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion;
and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect;
but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult." Leo Pfeffer. A humorous
quotation, but one that is uncomfortably close to reality.
bullet

"Cults are claimed to be deceitful. They are claimed to be harmful to
their members. They are claimed to be undermining American values.
Cults are claimed to be just about every bad thing in the book these
days, and with the pervasive images of Manson and Jim Jones hanging
over us, any group that is called a cult is immediately associated with
those two people." J. Gordon Melton.
bullet

"My working definition of a cult is a group that you don't like, and I
say that somewhat facetiously, but at the same time, in fact, that is
my working definition of a cult. It is a group that somebody doesn't
like. It is a derogatory term, and I have never seen it redeemed from
the derogatory connotations that it picked up in the sociological
literature in the 1930s." J. Gordon Melton.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm

In other words, you blithering idiot, "cult" is simply you being
childish and letting us know that you don't like the Mormons. We get
that already.

So I have a suggestion for you; go fix somebody's airconditioner.
Hopefully not mine; I wouldn't let you within fifty feet of my swamp
cooler and I SURE wouldn't allow you anywhere near a pipe that carried
natural gas. You would overload the system.

Diana

It was indeed wasted verbiage. I could have summed it up thusly:
Mormon's are cultist morons.
OTOH, you should rethink your definition of cult. You aren't even wrong.
You can't simply make up your own definition of a well defined term just
because you think you have an enlightening twist, and nor can those that
you quoted.

cult

cult (kùlt) noun
1.a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist
or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner
under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. b. The
followers of such a religion or sect.
2.A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3.The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony
and ritual.
4.A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to
have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a
person, principle, or thing. b. The object of such devotion.
6.An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or
intellectual interest.

noun, attributive
Often used to modify another noun: a cult figure; cult films.

[Latin cultus, worship, from past participle of colere, to cultivate.]
- cul´tic or cult´ish adjective
- cult´ism noun
- cult´ist noun

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic
version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and
distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States.
All rights reserved.
_____________________________________________

In short, a cult consists of a group of schizophrenic individuals
hanging upon every word of yet another schizophrenic and/or psychopathic
individual, who is in turn usually the so-called founder and/or leader.

You're damn right its a derogatory term, and well deserved by those who
are members of said cults. Now take this religious crap somewhere else,
such as perhaps alt.****ing.lunatic

hvacrmedic

In short, a cult consists of a group of schizophrenic individuals hanging
upon every word of yet another schizophrenic and/or psychopathic
individual, who is in turn usually the so-called founder and/or leader.


you mean like the followers of Pat Robertson or George Bush or Rush
Limbaugh?

Jimi Hendrix wrote:

In short, a cult consists of a group of schizophrenic individuals hanging
upon every word of yet another schizophrenic and/or psychopathic
individual, who is in turn usually the so-called founder and/or leader.



you mean like the followers of Pat Robertson or George Bush or Rush
Limbaugh?

Something like that. I'd leave Rush out of it though, he's actually
right a lot of the time.

hvacrmedic

"Jimi Hendrix" wrote in message
...
In short, a cult consists of a group of schizophrenic individuals hanging
upon every word of yet another schizophrenic and/or psychopathic
individual, who is in turn usually the so-called founder and/or leader.


you mean like the followers of Pat Robertson or George Bush or Rush
Limbaugh?

Another regular who hides behind a fascade.

"dianaiad" wrote in message
oups.com...

Oscar_Lives wrote:
Most Christians who critique the Mormon view of God do so from
a strictly biblical perspective. Christian apologists have
correctly pointed out that Mormon theology conflicts with biblical
doctrine in a number of important areas, including the nature of
God, the plan of salvation, and the nature of man.[1]

snip rest of autobot reposting of something this complete and utter
idiot has posted in its entirety several times, often within the SAME
THREAD, and that I, to my utter shame, actually answered once, point by
point. Man, I will NEVER learn not to feed the trolls

Regarding the title of this thread: Mormon is/was a man, or, if you
don't believe that he existed, a fictional character in a book. Either
way, he can't be a cult. Mormon ISM can be.

In fact, it is a cult. So, by the way, is Catholicism, every single
sect of Protestantism, and every other 'ism' there is out there. You
might try looking up the definition of a word before you pull something
this utterly brainless: cult: a system of community of religious
worship and ritual. Another definition of 'cult' that is nonreligious
is " obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a
person, principle, or thing."

Of course, I like the following definitions much better:
bullet

"...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion;
and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect;
but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult." Leo Pfeffer. A humorous
quotation, but one that is uncomfortably close to reality.
bullet

"Cults are claimed to be deceitful. They are claimed to be harmful to
their members. They are claimed to be undermining American values.
Cults are claimed to be just about every bad thing in the book these
days, and with the pervasive images of Manson and Jim Jones hanging
over us, any group that is called a cult is immediately associated with
those two people." J. Gordon Melton.
bullet

"My working definition of a cult is a group that you don't like, and I
say that somewhat facetiously, but at the same time, in fact, that is
my working definition of a cult. It is a group that somebody doesn't
like. It is a derogatory term, and I have never seen it redeemed from
the derogatory connotations that it picked up in the sociological
literature in the 1930s." J. Gordon Melton.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm

In other words, you blithering idiot, "cult" is simply you being
childish and letting us know that you don't like the Mormons. We get
that already.

So I have a suggestion for you; go fix somebody's airconditioner.
Hopefully not mine; I wouldn't let you within fifty feet of my swamp
cooler and I SURE wouldn't allow you anywhere near a pipe that carried
natural gas. You would overload the system.

Diana


Diana, I have another suggestion, go away, and don't have any kids, we have
enough idiots in the world.

I bet you read that all on your own one night !! Ha ha, yeah, right!!!

Here is the 20th century definition of a cult, I don't care if you like it
or not, it is accurate. BTW, I DID read Van Baalen's book in 1973 and didn't
go to google to search something that would align itself with my
predispostional views.

Your a real classic idiot.

Evangelical Christian and Counter-Cult Movement usage: Any religious group
which accepts most but not all of the historical Christian doctrines (the
divinity of Jesus, virgin birth, the Trinity, salvation, etc.). The
implication is that the cult's theology is invalid; they teach heresy. Under
this definition, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the
Mormons), Unification Church and Jehovah's Witnesses to be cults. But they
would not classify Wicca as such, because it is not associated with
Christianity. The earliest use of this meaning of the word "Cult" is
believed to be a 1938 book "The Chaos of the Cults" by J.K. VanBaalen. On
the other hand, new religious groups such as the Mormons, Unification Church
and Jehovah's Witnesses generally regard themselves to be the true Christian
church. They view all other denominations as being in error. (But not as a
cult unless they deny the fundamental doctrines, some listed above.)

"Fred Garvin" wrote in message
...
She kicked your ass, dude!

hehe


She didn't kick anybody's ass. Just be glad no one came after you, Fred. We
could swing anywhere and hit the ass!

"C & E" wrote in message
...

"Oscar_Lives" wrote in message
news:RHHuf.672486$x96.571060@attbi_s72...
Most Christians who critique the Mormon view of God do so from
a strictly biblical perspective. Christian apologists have

SNIP


It's 'Mormonism' not 'Mormon' ya dolt. One is a practice the other is a
person. If you're gonna be a biggot at least be accurate - sheesh!!!


Your an IDIOT !! Lets pretend were talking about Baptists and inject
Baptist into the sentence. Your idiotic reply suggests it should be Baptism
or Baptisim (BTW, there is no such word so don't waist your time telling me
about it)
This is funny, you critique something and remove all doubt that your the
fool! You major on the minors and ignore all the major points. I'm sure that
you have never made typo mistakes before and are perfect, so go where there
are no typo errors and leave us alone.

Gosh, don't you have your own newsgroup to go too, like
Alt.IdiotsWhoRemoveAllDoubt ?

"Steve Scott" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006 11:32:20 -0500, "C & E"
wrote:


"Oscar_Lives" wrote in message
news:RHHuf.672486$x96.571060@attbi_s72...
Most Christians who critique the Mormon view of God do so from
a strictly biblical perspective. Christian apologists have

SNIP


It's 'Mormonism' not 'Mormon' ya dolt. One is a practice the other is a
person. If you're gonna be a biggot at least be accurate - sheesh!!!

Ha ha ha!!! Great one Steve!!

Rich

This is great, notice the regular(s) pretending to be someone else when
replying! This is too funny.

Watch out for flying bottles!

Rich

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 21:02:43 -0600, RP
wrote:



dianaiad wrote:

Oscar_Lives wrote:

Most Christians who critique the Mormon view of God do so from
a strictly biblical perspective. Christian apologists have
correctly pointed out that Mormon theology conflicts with biblical
doctrine in a number of important areas, including the nature of
God, the plan of salvation, and the nature of man.[1]


snip rest of autobot reposting of something this complete and utter
idiot has posted in its entirety several times, often within the SAME
THREAD, and that I, to my utter shame, actually answered once, point by
point. Man, I will NEVER learn not to feed the trolls

Regarding the title of this thread: Mormon is/was a man, or, if you
don't believe that he existed, a fictional character in a book. Either
way, he can't be a cult. Mormon ISM can be.

In fact, it is a cult. So, by the way, is Catholicism, every single
sect of Protestantism, and every other 'ism' there is out there. You
might try looking up the definition of a word before you pull something
this utterly brainless: cult: a system of community of religious
worship and ritual. Another definition of 'cult' that is nonreligious
is " obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a
person, principle, or thing."

Of course, I like the following definitions much better:
bullet

"...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion;
and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect;
but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult." Leo Pfeffer. A humorous
quotation, but one that is uncomfortably close to reality.
bullet

"Cults are claimed to be deceitful. They are claimed to be harmful to
their members. They are claimed to be undermining American values.
Cults are claimed to be just about every bad thing in the book these
days, and with the pervasive images of Manson and Jim Jones hanging
over us, any group that is called a cult is immediately associated with
those two people." J. Gordon Melton.
bullet

"My working definition of a cult is a group that you don't like, and I
say that somewhat facetiously, but at the same time, in fact, that is
my working definition of a cult. It is a group that somebody doesn't
like. It is a derogatory term, and I have never seen it redeemed from
the derogatory connotations that it picked up in the sociological
literature in the 1930s." J. Gordon Melton.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm

In other words, you blithering idiot, "cult" is simply you being
childish and letting us know that you don't like the Mormons. We get
that already.

So I have a suggestion for you; go fix somebody's airconditioner.
Hopefully not mine; I wouldn't let you within fifty feet of my swamp
cooler and I SURE wouldn't allow you anywhere near a pipe that carried
natural gas. You would overload the system.

Diana

It was indeed wasted verbiage. I could have summed it up thusly:
Mormon's are cultist morons.
OTOH, you should rethink your definition of cult. You aren't even wrong.
You can't simply make up your own definition of a well defined term just
because you think you have an enlightening twist, and nor can those that
you quoted.

cult

cult (kùlt) noun
1.a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist
or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner
under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. b. The
followers of such a religion or sect.
2.A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3.The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony
and ritual.
4.A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to
have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a
person, principle, or thing. b. The object of such devotion.
6.An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or
intellectual interest.


So, this admits that Christianity is a cult too.

noun, attributive
Often used to modify another noun: a cult figure; cult films.

[Latin cultus, worship, from past participle of colere, to cultivate.]
- cul´tic or cult´ish adjective
- cult´ism noun
- cult´ist noun

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic
version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and
distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States.
All rights reserved.
_____________________________________________

In short, a cult consists of a group of schizophrenic individuals
hanging upon every word of yet another schizophrenic and/or psychopathic
individual, who is in turn usually the so-called founder and/or leader.

You're damn right its a derogatory term, and well deserved by those who
are members of said cults. Now take this religious crap somewhere else,
such as perhaps alt.****ing.lunatic

hvacrmedic

oscar goes:
snip snip...big speel

dude

don't act like this man.
what's wrong with you

hvac and home repair?
good heavens
you do damage to the Lord work
acting like this

you're in Rome
do like the Romans

STOP CROSSPOSTING

I don't wanna see this again

when me or anyone wants to learn about God

we do not come to hvac an repair
to learn about God

we goto the God sector

in otherwords, if you have something valueable to contribute to people
who want to learn about God..HOW WILL WE KNOW WHERE YOU POSTED THIS
WEEK OR NEXT WEEK!!!!!

this is green of you
stoppit

RP wrote:
dianaiad wrote:

Oscar_Lives wrote:

Most Christians who critique the Mormon view of God do so from
a strictly biblical perspective. Christian apologists have
correctly pointed out that Mormon theology conflicts with biblical
doctrine in a number of important areas, including the nature of
God, the plan of salvation, and the nature of man.[1]


snip rest of autobot reposting of something this complete and utter
idiot has posted in its entirety several times, often within the SAME
THREAD, and that I, to my utter shame, actually answered once, point by
point. Man, I will NEVER learn not to feed the trolls

Regarding the title of this thread: Mormon is/was a man, or, if you
don't believe that he existed, a fictional character in a book. Either
way, he can't be a cult. Mormon ISM can be.

In fact, it is a cult. So, by the way, is Catholicism, every single
sect of Protestantism, and every other 'ism' there is out there. You
might try looking up the definition of a word before you pull something
this utterly brainless: cult: a system of community of religious
worship and ritual. Another definition of 'cult' that is nonreligious
is " obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a
person, principle, or thing."

Of course, I like the following definitions much better:
bullet

"...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion;
and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect;
but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult." Leo Pfeffer. A humorous
quotation, but one that is uncomfortably close to reality.
bullet

"Cults are claimed to be deceitful. They are claimed to be harmful to
their members. They are claimed to be undermining American values.
Cults are claimed to be just about every bad thing in the book these
days, and with the pervasive images of Manson and Jim Jones hanging
over us, any group that is called a cult is immediately associated with
those two people." J. Gordon Melton.
bullet

"My working definition of a cult is a group that you don't like, and I
say that somewhat facetiously, but at the same time, in fact, that is
my working definition of a cult. It is a group that somebody doesn't
like. It is a derogatory term, and I have never seen it redeemed from
the derogatory connotations that it picked up in the sociological
literature in the 1930s." J. Gordon Melton.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm

In other words, you blithering idiot, "cult" is simply you being
childish and letting us know that you don't like the Mormons. We get
that already.

So I have a suggestion for you; go fix somebody's airconditioner.
Hopefully not mine; I wouldn't let you within fifty feet of my swamp
cooler and I SURE wouldn't allow you anywhere near a pipe that carried
natural gas. You would overload the system.

Diana

It was indeed wasted verbiage. I could have summed it up thusly:
Mormon's are cultist morons.

Indeed, you summed his post up succinctly. I do differ with his (and
yours, it seems) opinion, however.

OTOH, you should rethink your definition of cult. You aren't even wrong.

Then why should I rethink it?

You can't simply make up your own definition of a well defined term just
because you think you have an enlightening twist, and nor can those that
you quoted.

Of course I can. Whatsistwit did it. Or are you one of those
prescriptive, rather than descriptive, linguistic curmudgeons?

cult

cult (kùlt) noun
1.a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist
or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner
under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. b. The
followers of such a religion or sect.
2.A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3.The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony
and ritual.
4.A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to
have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a
person, principle, or thing. b. The object of such devotion.
6.An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or
intellectual interest.

noun, attributive
Often used to modify another noun: a cult figure; cult films.

[Latin cultus, worship, from past participle of colere, to cultivate.]
- cul´tic or cult´ish adjective
- cult´ism noun
- cult´ist noun

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic
version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and
distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States.
All rights reserved.

Doncha just love the internet? Here, I'll do you one better; here is
the definition from the definitive(yes, that was deliberate) English
Language Dictionary, the OED (That's "Oxford English Dictionary")

1. Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings.
Obs. (exc. as in sense 2).

2. a. A particular form or system of religious worship; esp. in
reference to its external rites and ceremonies.
b. Now freq. used attrib. by writers on cultic ritual and the
archæology of primitive cults.

3. transf. Devotion or homage to a particular person or thing, now
esp. as paid by a body of professed adherents or admirers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DRAFT ADDITIONS SEPTEMBER 2004


cult, n. and a.2

Designating cultural phenomena with a strong, often enduring appeal
to a relatively small audience; (also) designating this appeal or
audience, or any resultant success; fringe, non-mainstream. Hence:
possessing a fashionable or exclusive cachet; spec. (of artistic
figures or works) having a reputation or influence disproportionate to
their limited public exposure or commercial success. Freq. in cult
figure, status.
A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or
practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

I cut the etymology, timeline and quotes for space. However, I think
that you can see that my 'personal definition' isn't quite as out of
line as you claim it is, especially since even the American Heritage
Dictionary will recognize the OED as the trump expert in these matters.

_____________________________________________

In short, a cult consists of a group of schizophrenic individuals
hanging upon every word of yet another schizophrenic and/or psychopathic
individual, who is in turn usually the so-called founder and/or leader.

In short, you are correct....but only partially. You are, in fact,
commiting a logical fallacy, one of composition. You are assuming that
because a certain type of cult has a set of attributes, all cults have
those attributes. That's like saying that because some Ford Mustangs
are red, that all cars are red.

You're damn right its a derogatory term, and well deserved by those who
are members of said cults. Now take this religious crap somewhere else,
such as perhaps alt.****ing.lunatic

Actually, I'm not the one that brought it in here.

Geoman^^ wrote:
"Jimi Hendrix" wrote in message
...
In short, a cult consists of a group of schizophrenic individuals hanging
upon every word of yet another schizophrenic and/or psychopathic
individual, who is in turn usually the so-called founder and/or leader.


you mean like the followers of Pat Robertson or George Bush or Rush
Limbaugh?

Another regular who hides behind a fascade.

What, he hides behind an electronica musician?

dianaiad wrote:

RP wrote:

dianaiad wrote:


Oscar_Lives wrote:


Most Christians who critique the Mormon view of God do so from
a strictly biblical perspective. Christian apologists have
correctly pointed out that Mormon theology conflicts with biblical
doctrine in a number of important areas, including the nature of
God, the plan of salvation, and the nature of man.[1]


snip rest of autobot reposting of something this complete and utter
idiot has posted in its entirety several times, often within the SAME
THREAD, and that I, to my utter shame, actually answered once, point by
point. Man, I will NEVER learn not to feed the trolls

Regarding the title of this thread: Mormon is/was a man, or, if you
don't believe that he existed, a fictional character in a book. Either
way, he can't be a cult. Mormon ISM can be.

In fact, it is a cult. So, by the way, is Catholicism, every single
sect of Protestantism, and every other 'ism' there is out there. You
might try looking up the definition of a word before you pull something
this utterly brainless: cult: a system of community of religious
worship and ritual. Another definition of 'cult' that is nonreligious
is " obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a
person, principle, or thing."

Of course, I like the following definitions much better:
bullet

"...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion;
and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect;
but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult." Leo Pfeffer. A humorous
quotation, but one that is uncomfortably close to reality.
bullet

"Cults are claimed to be deceitful. They are claimed to be harmful to
their members. They are claimed to be undermining American values.
Cults are claimed to be just about every bad thing in the book these
days, and with the pervasive images of Manson and Jim Jones hanging
over us, any group that is called a cult is immediately associated with
those two people." J. Gordon Melton.
bullet

"My working definition of a cult is a group that you don't like, and I
say that somewhat facetiously, but at the same time, in fact, that is
my working definition of a cult. It is a group that somebody doesn't
like. It is a derogatory term, and I have never seen it redeemed from
the derogatory connotations that it picked up in the sociological
literature in the 1930s." J. Gordon Melton.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm

In other words, you blithering idiot, "cult" is simply you being
childish and letting us know that you don't like the Mormons. We get
that already.

So I have a suggestion for you; go fix somebody's airconditioner.
Hopefully not mine; I wouldn't let you within fifty feet of my swamp
cooler and I SURE wouldn't allow you anywhere near a pipe that carried
natural gas. You would overload the system.

Diana

It was indeed wasted verbiage. I could have summed it up thusly:
Mormon's are cultist morons.


Indeed, you summed his post up succinctly. I do differ with his (and
yours, it seems) opinion, however.


OTOH, you should rethink your definition of cult. You aren't even wrong.


Then why should I rethink it?


You can't simply make up your own definition of a well defined term just
because you think you have an enlightening twist, and nor can those that
you quoted.


Of course I can. Whatsistwit did it. Or are you one of those
prescriptive, rather than descriptive, linguistic curmudgeons?

cult

cult (kùlt) noun
1.a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist
or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner
under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. b. The
followers of such a religion or sect.
2.A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3.The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony
and ritual.
4.A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to
have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a
person, principle, or thing. b. The object of such devotion.
6.An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or
intellectual interest.

noun, attributive
Often used to modify another noun: a cult figure; cult films.

[Latin cultus, worship, from past participle of colere, to cultivate.]
- cul´tic or cult´ish adjective
- cult´ism noun
- cult´ist noun

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic
version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and
distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States.
All rights reserved.


Doncha just love the internet? Here, I'll do you one better; here is
the definition from the definitive(yes, that was deliberate) English
Language Dictionary, the OED (That's "Oxford English Dictionary")

1. Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings.
Obs. (exc. as in sense 2).

2. a. A particular form or system of religious worship; esp. in
reference to its external rites and ceremonies.
b. Now freq. used attrib. by writers on cultic ritual and the
archæology of primitive cults.

3. transf. Devotion or homage to a particular person or thing, now
esp. as paid by a body of professed adherents or admirers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DRAFT ADDITIONS SEPTEMBER 2004


cult, n. and a.2

Designating cultural phenomena with a strong, often enduring appeal
to a relatively small audience; (also) designating this appeal or
audience, or any resultant success; fringe, non-mainstream. Hence:
possessing a fashionable or exclusive cachet; spec. (of artistic
figures or works) having a reputation or influence disproportionate to
their limited public exposure or commercial success. Freq. in cult
figure, status.
A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or
practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

I cut the etymology, timeline and quotes for space. However, I think
that you can see that my 'personal definition' isn't quite as out of
line as you claim it is, especially since even the American Heritage
Dictionary will recognize the OED as the trump expert in these matters.


_____________________________________________

In short, a cult consists of a group of schizophrenic individuals
hanging upon every word of yet another schizophrenic and/or psychopathic
individual, who is in turn usually the so-called founder and/or leader.


In short, you are correct....but only partially. You are, in fact,
commiting a logical fallacy, one of composition. You are assuming that
because a certain type of cult has a set of attributes, all cults have
those attributes. That's like saying that because some Ford Mustangs
are red, that all cars are red.


You're damn right its a derogatory term, and well deserved by those who
are members of said cults. Now take this religious crap somewhere else,
such as perhaps alt.****ing.lunatic


Actually, I'm not the one that brought it in here.

But you seemed to be defending the opponents of the OP's post.
Nitpicking terminology is seldom fruitful. We've just seen the evidence
of that, twice Since we all know where each other stand on the
issues now, I'm done. This isn't the place for it. If the post was
flaming another contributor then the religious content is secondary to
the intent of the post, but to get into philosophical/theological debate
is OT of an OT subject--doubly not acceptable in any topic specific
groups such as these. Good luck to everyone with their beliefs, just
don't force them down my throat or I'll force them right back up your ass

hvacrmedic



hvacrmedic

Georde T wrote:

On Thu, 05 Jan 2006 21:02:43 -0600, RP
wrote:



dianaiad wrote:


Oscar_Lives wrote:


Most Christians who critique the Mormon view of God do so from
a strictly biblical perspective. Christian apologists have
correctly pointed out that Mormon theology conflicts with biblical
doctrine in a number of important areas, including the nature of
God, the plan of salvation, and the nature of man.[1]


snip rest of autobot reposting of something this complete and utter
idiot has posted in its entirety several times, often within the SAME
THREAD, and that I, to my utter shame, actually answered once, point by
point. Man, I will NEVER learn not to feed the trolls

Regarding the title of this thread: Mormon is/was a man, or, if you
don't believe that he existed, a fictional character in a book. Either
way, he can't be a cult. Mormon ISM can be.

In fact, it is a cult. So, by the way, is Catholicism, every single
sect of Protestantism, and every other 'ism' there is out there. You
might try looking up the definition of a word before you pull something
this utterly brainless: cult: a system of community of religious
worship and ritual. Another definition of 'cult' that is nonreligious
is " obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a
person, principle, or thing."

Of course, I like the following definitions much better:
bullet

"...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion;
and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect;
but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult." Leo Pfeffer. A humorous
quotation, but one that is uncomfortably close to reality.
bullet

"Cults are claimed to be deceitful. They are claimed to be harmful to
their members. They are claimed to be undermining American values.
Cults are claimed to be just about every bad thing in the book these
days, and with the pervasive images of Manson and Jim Jones hanging
over us, any group that is called a cult is immediately associated with
those two people." J. Gordon Melton.
bullet

"My working definition of a cult is a group that you don't like, and I
say that somewhat facetiously, but at the same time, in fact, that is
my working definition of a cult. It is a group that somebody doesn't
like. It is a derogatory term, and I have never seen it redeemed from
the derogatory connotations that it picked up in the sociological
literature in the 1930s." J. Gordon Melton.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm

In other words, you blithering idiot, "cult" is simply you being
childish and letting us know that you don't like the Mormons. We get
that already.

So I have a suggestion for you; go fix somebody's airconditioner.
Hopefully not mine; I wouldn't let you within fifty feet of my swamp
cooler and I SURE wouldn't allow you anywhere near a pipe that carried
natural gas. You would overload the system.

Diana

It was indeed wasted verbiage. I could have summed it up thusly:
Mormon's are cultist morons.
OTOH, you should rethink your definition of cult. You aren't even wrong.
You can't simply make up your own definition of a well defined term just
because you think you have an enlightening twist, and nor can those that
you quoted.

cult

cult (kùlt) noun
1.a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist
or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner
under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. b. The
followers of such a religion or sect.
2.A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3.The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony
and ritual.
4.A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to
have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a
person, principle, or thing. b. The object of such devotion.
6.An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or
intellectual interest.



So, this admits that Christianity is a cult too.

Amen.

hvacrmedic



noun, attributive
Often used to modify another noun: a cult figure; cult films.

[Latin cultus, worship, from past participle of colere, to cultivate.]
- cul´tic or cult´ish adjective
- cult´ism noun
- cult´ist noun

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic
version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and
distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States.
All rights reserved.
_____________________________________________

In short, a cult consists of a group of schizophrenic individuals
hanging upon every word of yet another schizophrenic and/or psychopathic
individual, who is in turn usually the so-called founder and/or leader.

You're damn right its a derogatory term, and well deserved by those who
are members of said cults. Now take this religious crap somewhere else,
such as perhaps alt.****ing.lunatic

hvacrmedic

Geoman^^ wrote:
"dianaiad" wrote in message
snip to

Diana, I have another suggestion, go away, and don't have any kids, we have
enough idiots in the world.

I bet you read that all on your own one night !! Ha ha, yeah, right!!!

Here is the 20th century definition of a cult, I don't care if you like it
or not, it is accurate.

According to whom?

BTW, I DID read Van Baalen's book in 1973

Oh, my beating heart, he read a book!

Mind you, "The Chaos of Cults" isn't quite as polemic and inacurate as
later books, and van Baalen isn't QUITE as nastily inaccurate as, say,
Walter Martin, but his depiction of the LDS church doctrine was still
somewhat inaccurate in some very important points. Note: I didn't argue
with his opinion; his opinion was his and he had every right to it.
What I said was that his descriptions of LDS doctrine were inaccurate.
I don't have a copy of "The Chaos of Cults" in front of me at the
moment, so I can't give you chapter and verse...and the one I read was
published in 1938 (the first edition), Since it has been revised and
expanded several times since then, and since its last incarnation, a
decade ago, was published by the Christian Research Institute, I have a
feeling that the accuracy level is even more problematic now. However,
do not, by any means, let that disturb your preconceptions.

and didn't
go to google to search something that would align itself with my
predispostional views.

(snort)

This from the man who went to the internet to cut and paste an American
Heritage Dictonary definition, without doing any other research?

Your a real classic idiot.

That's "you're", not "your." Tell me, dear sir, have you read any
books since "The Chaos of Cults"?

Evangelical Christian and Counter-Cult Movement usage: Any religious group
which accepts most but not all of the historical Christian doctrines (the
divinity of Jesus, virgin birth, the Trinity, salvation, etc.). The
implication is that the cult's theology is invalid; they teach heresy. Under
this definition, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the
Mormons), Unification Church and Jehovah's Witnesses to be cults. But they
would not classify Wicca as such, because it is not associated with
Christianity. The earliest use of this meaning of the word "Cult" is
believed to be a 1938 book "The Chaos of the Cults" by J.K. VanBaalen. On
the other hand, new religious groups such as the Mormons, Unification Church
and Jehovah's Witnesses generally regard themselves to be the true Christian
church. They view all other denominations as being in error. (But not as a
cult unless they deny the fundamental doctrines, some listed above.)

And you got this from where, exactly? It is generally a good idea to
properly attribute the source of a quote.

By the way; since when did the 'Evangelical Christian and Counter-Cult
Movement" get to define words for the rest of the English speaking
world?

Hint: never. They don't get to do that. YOU don't get to do that. Even
van Baalen didn't get to do that.

Oh, just as an aside...never get into an argument about linguistics
with an English professor. In fact, I would strongly advise you not to
get into such a discussion with anyone who has recieved greater than a
"C" in English 80.

Diana

RP wrote:
dianaiad wrote:

RP wrote:

dianaiad wrote:


Oscar_Lives wrote:


Most Christians who critique the Mormon view of God do so from
a strictly biblical perspective. Christian apologists have
correctly pointed out that Mormon theology conflicts with biblical
doctrine in a number of important areas, including the nature of
God, the plan of salvation, and the nature of man.[1]


snip rest of autobot reposting of something this complete and utter
idiot has posted in its entirety several times, often within the SAME
THREAD, and that I, to my utter shame, actually answered once, point by
point. Man, I will NEVER learn not to feed the trolls

Regarding the title of this thread: Mormon is/was a man, or, if you
don't believe that he existed, a fictional character in a book. Either
way, he can't be a cult. Mormon ISM can be.

In fact, it is a cult. So, by the way, is Catholicism, every single
sect of Protestantism, and every other 'ism' there is out there. You
might try looking up the definition of a word before you pull something
this utterly brainless: cult: a system of community of religious
worship and ritual. Another definition of 'cult' that is nonreligious
is " obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a
person, principle, or thing."

Of course, I like the following definitions much better:
bullet

"...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion;
and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect;
but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult." Leo Pfeffer. A humorous
quotation, but one that is uncomfortably close to reality.
bullet

"Cults are claimed to be deceitful. They are claimed to be harmful to
their members. They are claimed to be undermining American values.
Cults are claimed to be just about every bad thing in the book these
days, and with the pervasive images of Manson and Jim Jones hanging
over us, any group that is called a cult is immediately associated with
those two people." J. Gordon Melton.
bullet

"My working definition of a cult is a group that you don't like, and I
say that somewhat facetiously, but at the same time, in fact, that is
my working definition of a cult. It is a group that somebody doesn't
like. It is a derogatory term, and I have never seen it redeemed from
the derogatory connotations that it picked up in the sociological
literature in the 1930s." J. Gordon Melton.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm

In other words, you blithering idiot, "cult" is simply you being
childish and letting us know that you don't like the Mormons. We get
that already.

So I have a suggestion for you; go fix somebody's airconditioner.
Hopefully not mine; I wouldn't let you within fifty feet of my swamp
cooler and I SURE wouldn't allow you anywhere near a pipe that carried
natural gas. You would overload the system.

Diana

It was indeed wasted verbiage. I could have summed it up thusly:
Mormon's are cultist morons.


Indeed, you summed his post up succinctly. I do differ with his (and
yours, it seems) opinion, however.


OTOH, you should rethink your definition of cult. You aren't even wrong.


Then why should I rethink it?


You can't simply make up your own definition of a well defined term just
because you think you have an enlightening twist, and nor can those that
you quoted.


Of course I can. Whatsistwit did it. Or are you one of those
prescriptive, rather than descriptive, linguistic curmudgeons?

cult

cult (kùlt) noun
1.a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist
or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner
under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. b. The
followers of such a religion or sect.
2.A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3.The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony
and ritual.
4.A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to
have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a
person, principle, or thing. b. The object of such devotion.
6.An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or
intellectual interest.

noun, attributive
Often used to modify another noun: a cult figure; cult films.

[Latin cultus, worship, from past participle of colere, to cultivate.]
- cul´tic or cult´ish adjective
- cult´ism noun
- cult´ist noun

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic
version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and
distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States.
All rights reserved.


Doncha just love the internet? Here, I'll do you one better; here is
the definition from the definitive(yes, that was deliberate) English
Language Dictionary, the OED (That's "Oxford English Dictionary")

1. Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings.
Obs. (exc. as in sense 2).

2. a. A particular form or system of religious worship; esp. in
reference to its external rites and ceremonies.
b. Now freq. used attrib. by writers on cultic ritual and the
archæology of primitive cults.

3. transf. Devotion or homage to a particular person or thing, now
esp. as paid by a body of professed adherents or admirers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DRAFT ADDITIONS SEPTEMBER 2004


cult, n. and a.2

Designating cultural phenomena with a strong, often enduring appeal
to a relatively small audience; (also) designating this appeal or
audience, or any resultant success; fringe, non-mainstream. Hence:
possessing a fashionable or exclusive cachet; spec. (of artistic
figures or works) having a reputation or influence disproportionate to
their limited public exposure or commercial success. Freq. in cult
figure, status.
A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or
practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

I cut the etymology, timeline and quotes for space. However, I think
that you can see that my 'personal definition' isn't quite as out of
line as you claim it is, especially since even the American Heritage
Dictionary will recognize the OED as the trump expert in these matters.


_____________________________________________

In short, a cult consists of a group of schizophrenic individuals
hanging upon every word of yet another schizophrenic and/or psychopathic
individual, who is in turn usually the so-called founder and/or leader.


In short, you are correct....but only partially. You are, in fact,
commiting a logical fallacy, one of composition. You are assuming that
because a certain type of cult has a set of attributes, all cults have
those attributes. That's like saying that because some Ford Mustangs
are red, that all cars are red.


You're damn right its a derogatory term, and well deserved by those who
are members of said cults. Now take this religious crap somewhere else,
such as perhaps alt.****ing.lunatic


Actually, I'm not the one that brought it in here.

But you seemed to be defending the opponents of the OP's post.

Of course. The OP, as you term him, is an idiot, attacking people
behind their backs and in general being a jerk. When one does that on
the internet, one can expect a member of the group being so attacked to
take notice and object.

Nitpicking terminology is seldom fruitful. We've just seen the evidence
of that, twice Since we all know where each other stand on the
issues now, I'm done. This isn't the place for it. If the post was
flaming another contributor then the religious content is secondary to
the intent of the post, but to get into philosophical/theological debate
is OT of an OT subject--doubly not acceptable in any topic specific
groups such as these. Good luck to everyone with their beliefs, just
don't force them down my throat or I'll force them right back up your ass

Again, I'm not the one who started it. I may well not be the one who
ends it, either, but since I did NOT start the Mormon-bashing, you
certainly cannot accuse me of forcing anything down your throat, can
you?

Diana

RP wrote:
dianaiad wrote:

RP wrote:

dianaiad wrote:


Oscar_Lives wrote:


Most Christians who critique the Mormon view of God do so from
a strictly biblical perspective. Christian apologists have
correctly pointed out that Mormon theology conflicts with biblical
doctrine in a number of important areas, including the nature of
God, the plan of salvation, and the nature of man.[1]


snip rest of autobot reposting of something this complete and utter
idiot has posted in its entirety several times, often within the SAME
THREAD, and that I, to my utter shame, actually answered once, point by
point. Man, I will NEVER learn not to feed the trolls

Regarding the title of this thread: Mormon is/was a man, or, if you
don't believe that he existed, a fictional character in a book. Either
way, he can't be a cult. Mormon ISM can be.

In fact, it is a cult. So, by the way, is Catholicism, every single
sect of Protestantism, and every other 'ism' there is out there. You
might try looking up the definition of a word before you pull something
this utterly brainless: cult: a system of community of religious
worship and ritual. Another definition of 'cult' that is nonreligious
is " obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a
person, principle, or thing."

Of course, I like the following definitions much better:
bullet

"...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion;
and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect;
but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult." Leo Pfeffer. A humorous
quotation, but one that is uncomfortably close to reality.
bullet

"Cults are claimed to be deceitful. They are claimed to be harmful to
their members. They are claimed to be undermining American values.
Cults are claimed to be just about every bad thing in the book these
days, and with the pervasive images of Manson and Jim Jones hanging
over us, any group that is called a cult is immediately associated with
those two people." J. Gordon Melton.
bullet

"My working definition of a cult is a group that you don't like, and I
say that somewhat facetiously, but at the same time, in fact, that is
my working definition of a cult. It is a group that somebody doesn't
like. It is a derogatory term, and I have never seen it redeemed from
the derogatory connotations that it picked up in the sociological
literature in the 1930s." J. Gordon Melton.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm

In other words, you blithering idiot, "cult" is simply you being
childish and letting us know that you don't like the Mormons. We get
that already.

So I have a suggestion for you; go fix somebody's airconditioner.
Hopefully not mine; I wouldn't let you within fifty feet of my swamp
cooler and I SURE wouldn't allow you anywhere near a pipe that carried
natural gas. You would overload the system.

Diana

It was indeed wasted verbiage. I could have summed it up thusly:
Mormon's are cultist morons.


Indeed, you summed his post up succinctly. I do differ with his (and
yours, it seems) opinion, however.


OTOH, you should rethink your definition of cult. You aren't even wrong.


Then why should I rethink it?


You can't simply make up your own definition of a well defined term just
because you think you have an enlightening twist, and nor can those that
you quoted.


Of course I can. Whatsistwit did it. Or are you one of those
prescriptive, rather than descriptive, linguistic curmudgeons?

cult

cult (kùlt) noun
1.a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist
or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner
under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. b. The
followers of such a religion or sect.
2.A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3.The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony
and ritual.
4.A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to
have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a
person, principle, or thing. b. The object of such devotion.
6.An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or
intellectual interest.

noun, attributive
Often used to modify another noun: a cult figure; cult films.

[Latin cultus, worship, from past participle of colere, to cultivate.]
- cul´tic or cult´ish adjective
- cult´ism noun
- cult´ist noun

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic
version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and
distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States.
All rights reserved.


Doncha just love the internet? Here, I'll do you one better; here is
the definition from the definitive(yes, that was deliberate) English
Language Dictionary, the OED (That's "Oxford English Dictionary")

1. Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings.
Obs. (exc. as in sense 2).

2. a. A particular form or system of religious worship; esp. in
reference to its external rites and ceremonies.
b. Now freq. used attrib. by writers on cultic ritual and the
archæology of primitive cults.

3. transf. Devotion or homage to a particular person or thing, now
esp. as paid by a body of professed adherents or admirers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DRAFT ADDITIONS SEPTEMBER 2004


cult, n. and a.2

Designating cultural phenomena with a strong, often enduring appeal
to a relatively small audience; (also) designating this appeal or
audience, or any resultant success; fringe, non-mainstream. Hence:
possessing a fashionable or exclusive cachet; spec. (of artistic
figures or works) having a reputation or influence disproportionate to
their limited public exposure or commercial success. Freq. in cult
figure, status.
A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or
practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

I cut the etymology, timeline and quotes for space. However, I think
that you can see that my 'personal definition' isn't quite as out of
line as you claim it is, especially since even the American Heritage
Dictionary will recognize the OED as the trump expert in these matters.


_____________________________________________

In short, a cult consists of a group of schizophrenic individuals
hanging upon every word of yet another schizophrenic and/or psychopathic
individual, who is in turn usually the so-called founder and/or leader.


In short, you are correct....but only partially. You are, in fact,
commiting a logical fallacy, one of composition. You are assuming that
because a certain type of cult has a set of attributes, all cults have
those attributes. That's like saying that because some Ford Mustangs
are red, that all cars are red.


You're damn right its a derogatory term, and well deserved by those who
are members of said cults. Now take this religious crap somewhere else,
such as perhaps alt.****ing.lunatic


Actually, I'm not the one that brought it in here.

But you seemed to be defending the opponents of the OP's post.

Of course. The OP, as you term him, is an idiot, attacking people
behind their backs and in general being a jerk. When one does that on
the internet, one can expect a member of the group being so attacked to
take notice and object.

Nitpicking terminology is seldom fruitful. We've just seen the evidence
of that, twice Since we all know where each other stand on the
issues now, I'm done. This isn't the place for it. If the post was
flaming another contributor then the religious content is secondary to
the intent of the post, but to get into philosophical/theological debate
is OT of an OT subject--doubly not acceptable in any topic specific
groups such as these. Good luck to everyone with their beliefs, just
don't force them down my throat or I'll force them right back up your ass

Again, I'm not the one who started it. I may well not be the one who
ends it, either, but since I did NOT start the Mormon-bashing, you
certainly cannot accuse me of forcing anything down your throat, can
you?

Diana

dianaiad wrote:

RP wrote:

dianaiad wrote:


RP wrote:


dianaiad wrote:



Oscar_Lives wrote:



Most Christians who critique the Mormon view of God do so from
a strictly biblical perspective. Christian apologists have
correctly pointed out that Mormon theology conflicts with biblical
doctrine in a number of important areas, including the nature of
God, the plan of salvation, and the nature of man.[1]


snip rest of autobot reposting of something this complete and utter
idiot has posted in its entirety several times, often within the SAME
THREAD, and that I, to my utter shame, actually answered once, point by
point. Man, I will NEVER learn not to feed the trolls

Regarding the title of this thread: Mormon is/was a man, or, if you
don't believe that he existed, a fictional character in a book. Either
way, he can't be a cult. Mormon ISM can be.

In fact, it is a cult. So, by the way, is Catholicism, every single
sect of Protestantism, and every other 'ism' there is out there. You
might try looking up the definition of a word before you pull something
this utterly brainless: cult: a system of community of religious
worship and ritual. Another definition of 'cult' that is nonreligious
is " obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a
person, principle, or thing."

Of course, I like the following definitions much better:
bullet

"...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion;
and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect;
but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult." Leo Pfeffer. A humorous
quotation, but one that is uncomfortably close to reality.
bullet

"Cults are claimed to be deceitful. They are claimed to be harmful to
their members. They are claimed to be undermining American values.
Cults are claimed to be just about every bad thing in the book these
days, and with the pervasive images of Manson and Jim Jones hanging
over us, any group that is called a cult is immediately associated with
those two people." J. Gordon Melton.
bullet

"My working definition of a cult is a group that you don't like, and I
say that somewhat facetiously, but at the same time, in fact, that is
my working definition of a cult. It is a group that somebody doesn't
like. It is a derogatory term, and I have never seen it redeemed from
the derogatory connotations that it picked up in the sociological
literature in the 1930s." J. Gordon Melton.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/cults.htm

In other words, you blithering idiot, "cult" is simply you being
childish and letting us know that you don't like the Mormons. We get
that already.

So I have a suggestion for you; go fix somebody's airconditioner.
Hopefully not mine; I wouldn't let you within fifty feet of my swamp
cooler and I SURE wouldn't allow you anywhere near a pipe that carried
natural gas. You would overload the system.

Diana

It was indeed wasted verbiage. I could have summed it up thusly:
Mormon's are cultist morons.


Indeed, you summed his post up succinctly. I do differ with his (and
yours, it seems) opinion, however.



OTOH, you should rethink your definition of cult. You aren't even wrong.


Then why should I rethink it?



You can't simply make up your own definition of a well defined term just
because you think you have an enlightening twist, and nor can those that
you quoted.


Of course I can. Whatsistwit did it. Or are you one of those
prescriptive, rather than descriptive, linguistic curmudgeons?


cult

cult (kùlt) noun
1.a. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist
or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner
under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader. b. The
followers of such a religion or sect.
2.A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3.The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony
and ritual.
4.A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to
have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5.a. Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a
person, principle, or thing. b. The object of such devotion.
6.An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or
intellectual interest.

noun, attributive
Often used to modify another noun: a cult figure; cult films.

[Latin cultus, worship, from past participle of colere, to cultivate.]
- cul´tic or cult´ish adjective
- cult´ism noun
- cult´ist noun

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic
version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and
distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States.
All rights reserved.


Doncha just love the internet? Here, I'll do you one better; here is
the definition from the definitive(yes, that was deliberate) English
Language Dictionary, the OED (That's "Oxford English Dictionary")

1. Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings.
Obs. (exc. as in sense 2).

2. a. A particular form or system of religious worship; esp. in
reference to its external rites and ceremonies.
b. Now freq. used attrib. by writers on cultic ritual and the
archæology of primitive cults.

3. transf. Devotion or homage to a particular person or thing, now
esp. as paid by a body of professed adherents or admirers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DRAFT ADDITIONS SEPTEMBER 2004


cult, n. and a.2

Designating cultural phenomena with a strong, often enduring appeal
to a relatively small audience; (also) designating this appeal or
audience, or any resultant success; fringe, non-mainstream. Hence:
possessing a fashionable or exclusive cachet; spec. (of artistic
figures or works) having a reputation or influence disproportionate to
their limited public exposure or commercial success. Freq. in cult
figure, status.
A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or
practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

I cut the etymology, timeline and quotes for space. However, I think
that you can see that my 'personal definition' isn't quite as out of
line as you claim it is, especially since even the American Heritage
Dictionary will recognize the OED as the trump expert in these matters.



____________________________________________ _

In short, a cult consists of a group of schizophrenic individuals
hanging upon every word of yet another schizophrenic and/or psychopathic
individual, who is in turn usually the so-called founder and/or leader.


In short, you are correct....but only partially. You are, in fact,
commiting a logical fallacy, one of composition. You are assuming that
because a certain type of cult has a set of attributes, all cults have
those attributes. That's like saying that because some Ford Mustangs
are red, that all cars are red.



You're damn right its a derogatory term, and well deserved by those who
are members of said cults. Now take this religious crap somewhere else,
such as perhaps alt.****ing.lunatic


Actually, I'm not the one that brought it in here.

But you seemed to be defending the opponents of the OP's post.


Of course. The OP, as you term him, is an idiot, attacking people
behind their backs and in general being a jerk. When one does that on
the internet, one can expect a member of the group being so attacked to
take notice and object.


Nitpicking terminology is seldom fruitful. We've just seen the evidence
of that, twice Since we all know where each other stand on the
issues now, I'm done. This isn't the place for it. If the post was
flaming another contributor then the religious content is secondary to
the intent of the post, but to get into philosophical/theological debate
is OT of an OT subject--doubly not acceptable in any topic specific
groups such as these. Good luck to everyone with their beliefs, just
don't force them down my throat or I'll force them right back up your ass


Again, I'm not the one who started it. I may well not be the one who
ends it, either, but since I did NOT start the Mormon-bashing, you
certainly cannot accuse me of forcing anything down your throat, can
you?

But you were bashing the Mormon basher, and I happen to like the Mormon
basher. You don't expect somebody to post a flaming reply to somebody
and not catch some heat over it do you?

We are clearly not of the same camp. Though you express yourself
intelligently, the content of your replies paints a superstitious
picture, which is not befitting of someone who values logical argument
as you feign to do.

BTW, are you good looking? Oh, wait a minute, are you actually female?

hvacrmedic

RP wrote:
dianaiad wrote:
snip to

We are clearly not of the same camp. Though you express yourself
intelligently, the content of your replies paints a superstitious
picture, which is not befitting of someone who values logical argument
as you feign to do.

"feign"?

BTW, are you good looking?

Depends on your POV. At least my children don't wince when they look
at me.

Oh, wait a minute, are you actually female?

Yes. And, and unless the average statistics regarding these things are
way off kilter, probably old enough to be your mother, at least. I may
be old enough to be your grandmother.

RP wrote:
dianaiad wrote:
snip to

But you were bashing the Mormon basher, and I happen to like the Mormon
basher.

Do you, then? That's nice.

You don't expect somebody to post a flaming reply to somebody
and not catch some heat over it do you?

Nope.

But I don't have to sit quietly and take it, either. Just call me Diana
the Danite.

We are clearly not of the same camp. Though you express yourself
intelligently, the content of your replies paints a superstitious
picture, which is not befitting of someone who values logical argument
as you feign to do.

"Feign"?

BTW, are you good looking?

My kids don't throw up when they see me.

Oh, wait a minute, are you actually female?

Yes. And given the general statistics of the internet, probably old
enough to be your mother's big sister. I'd say 'grandmother', except
that those who post in usenet groups like this one tend to be a little
older than the typical internet junkie.

Diana.

dianaiad wrote:
RP wrote:

dianaiad wrote:

snip to

But you were bashing the Mormon basher, and I happen to like the Mormon
basher.


Do you, then? That's nice.


You don't expect somebody to post a flaming reply to somebody
and not catch some heat over it do you?


Nope.

But I don't have to sit quietly and take it, either. Just call me Diana
the Danite.


We are clearly not of the same camp. Though you express yourself
intelligently, the content of your replies paints a superstitious
picture, which is not befitting of someone who values logical argument
as you feign to do.


"Feign"?

BTW, are you good looking?


My kids don't throw up when they see me.


Oh, wait a minute, are you actually female?


Yes. And given the general statistics of the internet, probably old
enough to be your mother's big sister. I'd say 'grandmother', except
that those who post in usenet groups like this one tend to be a little
older than the typical internet junkie.

Diana.

You're correct. Most of us here have been around the block. Take care
Diana

hvacrmedic

"Evangelical Christian and Counter-Cult Movement"

this is an oxymoron, as far as I am concerned, as evangelicals,
fundamentalists, religious right, republicans, whatever you want to call
them, are the ones drinking the Kool-Aid!!

if you want to see a classic film about how a town full of people, who
remind me exactly of the groups above, get brainwashed and turn into
mindless lemmings, see the 1956 classic "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049366


It may be from 1956, but it's relevance 50 years later to 2006 is eerie and
very scary.

"Jimi Hendrix" wrote in message
...
"Evangelical Christian and Counter-Cult Movement"

this is an oxymoron, as far as I am concerned, as evangelicals,
fundamentalists, religious right, republicans, whatever you want to call
them, are the ones drinking the Kool-Aid!!

if you want to see a classic film about how a town full of people, who
remind me exactly of the groups above, get brainwashed and turn into
mindless lemmings, see the 1956 classic "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049366


It may be from 1956, but it's relevance 50 years later to 2006 is eerie
and very scary.


Nah, I like "Motel Hell" better.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081184/fullcredits