Tag: Mormon

Deeper Waters Podcast 6/20/2020

What’s coming up? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Mormonism is a strange religious movement. While there are noted differences between it and Christianity, even those of us who know it is not Christian have some difficulties from it. Namely, there are many skeptics who like to point out supposed parallels between Christianity and Mormonism. Why is it you believe the former and not the latter? Isn’t that special pleading?

We wouldn’t want to be doing that would we? Paul claims to see Jesus appear on the Damascus Road. Joseph Smith claims to see the Father and the Son in a heavenly vision. 500 people are said to have seen the risen Jesus at one time. Several people also saw the golden plates of Joseph Smith didn’t they? Shouldn’t we be consistent? Shouldn’t we either accept both or reject both?

It’s really sad that this is a neglected area of apologetics. We have two accounts of claims of seeing something and both of them are foundational to the religion. No one has really done an in-depth look at both of these accounts as far as I know.

Until now.

Thankfully, someone stepped up to the plate and wrote an excellent book on the topic. I’ll be discussing with him this Saturday about it. I sometimes think of him as one of the best apologists you’ve never heard of. Some of you have, of course, but to many people, he’s not as well-known which is a shame. I find all of his material to be excellent. His name is Rob Bowman and he’ll be joining me Saturday.

So who is he?

According to his bio:

Robert M. Bowman Jr. is the president of Faith Thinkers, a Christian apologetics ministry (www.FaithThinkers.org/). He holds MA and PhD degrees in biblical studies from Fuller Theological Seminary and South African Theological Seminary. Rob has taught undergraduate and graduate students at Biola University, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, Southern Evangelical Seminary, and elsewhere. He is the author of some 60 periodical articles and the author or co-author of 15 books including Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ (with J. Ed Komoszewski), Faith Thinkers: 30 Christian Apologists You Should Know, and Jesus’ Resurrection and Joseph’s Visions: Examining the Foundations of Christianity and Mormonism.

I hope you’ll be joining us this Saturday. We are again working on getting the shows done and uploaded. There has been a lot going on and I personally apologize for that.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Out of Zion

What do I think of Lisa Brockman’s book published by Harvest House? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Mormonism is really a fascinating belief to study as it has become its own culture. When it comes to dialogue, I really prefer Jehovah’s Witnesses because you get so much into the Scriptures more. Mormons tend to go with the burning in the bosom regularly. However, when it comes to what they believe and their history, Mormonism is much more interesting to study.

When I saw Lisa Brockman’s book then, I was interested in going through it. The book actually starts in the middle of the story with her with a non-Mormon guy named Gary she really liked who at one point just asked a simple question. How do you know Mormonism is true? It froze her. She had the burning in the bosom that she talked about, but what if that wasn’t enough? She proceeded to do a Bible study with Gary and in a little less than a year abandoned Mormonism for Christianity.

But that’s not where her story starts. Her story starts with her being a little girl in a Mormon family devoted to Mormonism and wanting to please Heavenly Father. At one point seemingly out of nowhere though, she really wants to fit into the crowd and thus starts drinking and making out with guys. Until that point though, you really see how controlling the Mormon lifestyle is on kids. Everything they do is not really to please their Father so much as to earn His approval. This especially is meant to culminate here in a temple marriage. That’s the only way you can enter the highest heaven and eventually be a god or goddess over your own planet.

The biggest insight out of this book really is family life. When reading it, I got shades of what Nabeel Qureshi’s book was like. In his book, when he left Islam for Christianity, he was happy to be a Christian, but a part of him wished that he could have converted and died immediately so that he would never have to shame his parents. Many of us today don’t understand this generational shame, but it’s a strong reality in families from the East and apparently fits into Mormon culture.

Brockman describes about how she told her parents about what happened. Some stories I would have liked to have more on. One was a story about what happened after where she met with her Dad and a leader of the Mormon Church and a friend who was an ex-Mormon who came to support her and when prayer was suggested the friend say, “We would prefer to pray ourselves since you pray to Satan.” I would have loved to have known how that turned out!

The last major chapter of the book describes her living in Orlando and someone moves in from Utah named Tiffani who is a struggling Mormon and about their relationship together as Tiffani comes to Jesus. It is a heartwarming story. Once again, the family dynamics of Mormonism come into play.

This book is more autobiographical than meant to be an apologetic. While there is some of that in place, you won’t come here finding the killer argument to refute Mormonism, and that’s okay. Brockman I think wants to introduce you more to the culture to extend your heart to these people. You really understand more about why it is so hard for Mormons to leave.

For that purpose, this is a great book. I sometimes did think some stories were a bit disjointed. For instance, she talks about an interest in a boy named Finn, but later on we don’t hear anything about that or what came of it. I would have liked to have parts like that explained more. I also wondered at the end where her parents are today.

Still, if you want to understand Mormonism from the inside-out and from the perspective of someone much more a layperson in the faith, this is a good one to read. I give it my full recommendation.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Book Plunge: Christian Delusion Chapter 4

What do I think of the Outsider Test For Faith? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we’re returning again to a look at The Christian Delusion by John Loftus. I recently noticed that he’s not the guy who wrote about the Nazis but apparently, he’s someone who likes to make fun of disabled people, get drunk at conventions, and give the finger to amusement park workers. Anyway, in this chapter, we’re looking at what he calls the outsider test for faith.

The more I look at this, it reminds me of the Mormon test. Loftus is convinced that no faith can survive the outsider test for faith. This is akin to the Mormon claim because if you tell the Mormons that their test didn’t work for you, then the problem is not with the test, but it is with you. You must not have been sincere enough. So it is with the outsider test for faith. If you’re still a Christian, well you must not have been sincere enough in the test.

Basically, the test is to look at your position from that of an outsider. If you were a skeptic of your position, would it uphold? Fortunately, I do this as I regularly read books that critique my position. So far, it’s really solidified me in my position. If this is the best that they have, then Christianity is really looking good.

Loftus points to something Eller has said about how meeting people sincere in other religions is such a problem. Why should it be? Should atheists be concerned when they meet people not of a different religion but of a different worldview? What if I meet someone who is thoroughly convinced of geocentrism or that the Earth is flat? Why should that give me pause about my view?

Loftus also says brainwashed people don’t know they are brainwashed. It’s interesting that Loftus never seems to see this is a two-edged sword. Maybe Loftus is the one who is brainwashed in atheism. Will he deny it? Sure, but that is just because he doesn’t know it! Remember that brainwashed people don’t know that they are brainwashed.

Loftus also says that when we encounter Mormons or Muslims, we start with the idea that our worldview is true and then that the other is false for disagreeing. This is false. Now with Mormons, I do try to uphold the Bible since they claim the same, but I show the differences between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. With Muslims, since I am not an expert on the Qur’an, I choose to just try to uphold the New Testament.

Instead, it is atheists, who like Long in the last chapter, do what Loftus is talking about. After all, if atheism is true, there are no talking donkeys and since one book in the Bible has one, then Christianity is false. Loftus has no problem putting that in his book while telling others that’s not a good way to make arguments.

Loftus also says we adopt methodological naturalism to test extraordinary claims in other religions. This is false. For one thing, Loftus never defines methodological naturalism, which actually can be difficult to do. Second, I have no problem with miracles happening in other religions. Do I test the claims? Yes. I do the same for my own religion.

Loftus also says a believer should subject their faith to the best critiques of it. Done. When are atheists going to do the same? Loftus needs to write this for his own camp. He also asks how we would respond if Mormon faith was said to be properly basic or Muslims had an inner testimony. Simple. I would reject those just like I do for Christians. He also says Pascal’s Wager fails since we must decide what God to believe on. Not at all. Pascal’s Wager is not about deciding which faith is true, but it’s for the person who is considering Christianity but is still hesitant.

On p. 89, we get this delightful gem.

“The only thing we can and should trust is the sciences. Science alone provides consistently excellent results that cannot be denied, which are continually retested for validity. I’m claiming religious beliefs learned on our mama’s knees are in a different category than the results of repeatable scientific experiments, and that this claim is both obvious and non-controversial. We can personally do the experiments ourselves. When it comes to religious faiths, there are no mutually agreed upon reliable tests to decide between them, and this makes all the difference in the world. Besides, as David Eller has argued, Christians are not opposed to modern science anyway. They adopt its methods and conclusions in a vast majority of areas except a few limited ones concerning their faith. So the question is why should they adopt such a double standard with regard to science. Why do they accept the results of science the vast majority of time but subsequently reject them with regard to their faith?”

This is truly something remarkable. Many of us have already spotted one major problem. Nothing in this paragraph is scientific. Not a single word of it. We can do no experiments to verify any of this. Loftus has given a philosophical argument to show that science is the best style of demonstration.

Second, it’s not even true. Science always has tentative results. Some of these are more likely than others so much so that we can call them facts, but the reasoning is inductive at best. The only areas with absolute certainty are mathematics and logic.

Third, we can’t always do the experiments ourselves. Can we do an experiment involving what is found on Mars? Can we do an experiment that will require the CERN collider?

Fourth, I think there are many areas atheists disregard science. Consider the case of abortion. The science is in that life begins at conception. Many atheists deny this and go to philosophy and try to argue that what is in the womb is not a person.

Loftus also asks later on which evangelist will tell the ugly side of the Bible while preaching the good news or give a copy of a book alongside of Christian apologetics to read. As I’ve said earlier, when I do read Christian apologetics and scholarship, they interact with their opponents. Most atheists don’t. Also, where in this chapter does Loftus present the best scholarship for say, the resurrection of Jesus? Where does he talk about mass slaughters in the 20th century done under atheism?

He also says he liked Bill Maher’s movie Religulous. I can’t say I am surprised. I did review it and found it incredibly lacking.

Loftus also says that he knows the material world exists and the scientific method is the only sure way for assessing truth claims. Again, nothing in that is scientific. Second, could he give a scientific test to show that the material world exists? Anyone with a more Hindu world could do the same and just say this is how the illusion is about us. Peter Kreeft has talked about a professor of Christian Science who taught chemistry. He would say his religious beliefs tell him that this world is all an illusion and not real, but the illusion fits incredibly well and he’s going to describe it.

Loftus also says the idea we are living in the Matrix cannot be taken seriously by any intelligent person. We are sure that Nick Bostrom is happy to hear that he is not an intelligent person. While disagreeing with the Matrix idea, there are plenty of brilliant Eastern thinkers who would say the material world is an illusion.

Loftus then goes on to say that if it’s silly to say we are living in the Matrix, saying God is real should be silly too. Why? Your guess is as good as mine. Loftus never gives any reason for this.

Loftus also says it’s patently false to say atheism is a worldview or a religion. It would be like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby. Yet if one goes to the first big question of a worldview on God and answers in the negative, is not such a person taking a view on the world? The world is one in which God does not exist. How is this not a worldview?

Loftus also says saying someone is an atheist doesn’t tell you much about what they believe. Absolutely. An atheist can be for all intents and purposes living like a saint. They can also be Joseph Stalin. Neither one of them is violating atheism.

Loftus goes on to say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and religious beliefs are extraordinary. Why? Because they believe one more thing than what atheists believe, that God exists. Why should atheists be the standard? Could I not say that atheism is an extraordinary claim since it claims to know there is no God and that all of existence is just chance? That’s extraordinary. Hence my problem with this idea. Extraordinary is too subjective.

Loftus replies that this is not extraordinary due to the outsider test. It’s worth noting he’s regularly given excuses for why he doesn’t need to apply it to his own position. Note that this assumes his position is the correct one which is the presuppositional atheism I have talked about.

When he looks at the counter-arguments of Victor Reppert, he says that he was not just taught to think the external world exists, but he experiences it daily. Such an argument would not be at all convincing to an Eastern mind or someone like Bishop Berkeley. He also says it would deny science. Again, Eastern thinkers would not think such a thing at all.

Loftus also says he knows of no skeptical person who wants to justify rape. If they are not there, give it time and it will come. Some do though, or else they wouldn’t commit rape. We can see Richard Dawkins providing some excuses for mild pedophilia. Loftus also says the same about Democracy. After all, only some religious believers want a theocracy. After all, we know the former Soviet Union, atheistic as it was, were all big time fans of Democracy.

He goes on to quote Carrier presenting his answer to Reppert saying that any rational 15th or 16th century man presented with all that we have today would agree that Democracy is better. Therefore, Democracy is better. The same applies with rape being wrong. Well, there you go. Let me make an argument then.

Any 5th or 4th century BC man presented with the evidence we have today for Christianity would be a Christian. Therefore, Christianity is better. Hence, we should all bow down and accept Jesus as Lord.

It’s easy to say your position is rational when you say that only rational people who you have no access to would agree. We can’t jump in our time machines and see if the 15th or 16th century man would agree with Carrier. Why should we go by what we can’t see, especially since Loftus has been all about scientific testing.

Reppert finally says that he has been putting his faith to the test since 1972. Loftus replies that he doesn’t think any religious faith can pass the test. And there you go. We have entered the realm of the Mormon test. Why does Reppert not count? Because no position can pass the outsider test. Therefore Reppert wasn’t sincere or something like that because the test has to be true.

There’s a reason Loftus isn’t really getting all the attention he desires much any more.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast 3/10/2018: Corey Miller

What’s coming up? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Imagine driving around your town checking out area churches one day. You go through and you see all kinds. There’s Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Messianic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Nazarene, etc. You go through your town noticing all these many churches.

You also notice another church. It refers to itself as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This is the Mormon church. Well that’s just another denomination isn’t it? Right? It’s just like all the others. It’s still a church and the differences between it and the other churches would be minor. Right?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

On my next episode, I am going to be discussing Mormonism and doing so covering a book that talks about why four different people who are now scholars left Mormonism. Was it just changing denominations? Is it anything like a Methodist becoming a Baptist or a Protestant becoming a Catholic? Could it actually be something more?

One of the main editors of this book will be joining me. It is possible his co-editor Lynn Wilder, who has been on before, could be joining us as well. My guest is one who left Mormonism and went on to study Christianity seriously. He studied it so seriously he is now president and CEO of a Christian apologetics organization. That organization is Ratio Christi which many of you who do college work know about and that person is Corey Miller and the book is Leaving Mormonism.

So who is he?

According to his bio:

Corey Miller, PhD, is president and CEO of Ratio Christi: Campus Apologetics Alliance (www.ratiochristi.org). He currently teaches philosophy and comparative religions at Indiana University-Kokomo, and has taught at Purdue U, Multnomah University, and Ecola Bible College. He possesses graduate degrees in biblical studies (Multnomah Biblical Seminary), philosophy of religion and ethics (Biola/Talbot School of Theology), and philosophy (Purdue U), as well as a doctorate in philosophical theology from the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. He is co-editor of Is Faith in God Reasonable? Debates in Philosophy, Science, and Rhetoric (Routledge, 2014) and co-author of Leaving Mormonism: Why Four Scholars Changed their Minds (Ratio Christi/Kregel, 2017)

So why would Corey and other scholars leave Mormonism? What’s wrong with it? Would it be seen as the same as leaving another denomination? What do Mormons really believe and should a Christian be concerned about going to a Mormon church? What is it that a Christian should say when they encounter someone who is a Mormon or has them come and knock on their door?

Also, on another note, I want you all to know that we have been praying for help with the sound. My former sound guy did a great job, but he had to move on. It is not a problem of bad blood between us. We are still friends and he was very generous to us. Fortunately, I had someone message me out of the blue yesterday volunteering if I ever needed audio help so that position has been filled. Of course, I still encourage you to be listening and please leave a positive review on iTunes.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Can Your Christianity Be Disproven?

Are you open to the possibility of being wrong? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Let me state it right at the start. I am not doubting Christianity. I am not writing from a position of doubt. I am convinced that God exists and that Jesus rose from the dead. Despite that, I should always be open to being wrong. This hit home again for me reading Zondervan’s Five Views On Biblical Inerrancy.

Al Mohler has the first chapter and in it, he pretty much equates inerrancy with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, or CSBI. For Mohler, it seems difficult to imagine inerrancy that does not conform to this statement and if Jesus and Paul or anyone else is an inerrantist, then they would have signed on entirely with the CSBI. That is too much of an assumption I think to make, but a major problem came when I read his response to problem passages that Zondervan asked each person to write on.

In the Kindle version at location 772, I read the following:

Archaeologists will disagree among themselves. I am not an archaeologist, and I am not qualified to render any adequate archaeological argument. The point is that I do not allow any line of evidence from outside the Bible to nullify to the slightest degree the truthfulness of any text in all that the text asserts and claims. That statement may appear radical to some readers, but it is the only position that is fully true and trustworthy. Any theological or hermeneutical method that allows extrabiblical sources of knowledge to nullify the truthfulness of any biblical text assumes, a priori, that the Bible is something less than the oracular Word of God.

Well, yes. This position is very radical. Naturally, if the Bible is inerrant and is true in all it claims and teaches, then if it says X, then X is true. Yet at the same time, if God is the God of reality and has written two books as it were with nature and Scripture, then we should expect that nothing outside of Scripture will contradict Scripture.

The problem is that this is the very claim under question. How do we know the Bible is inerrant? Do we start with that as a presupposition or do we reach it as a conclusion? If we say the former, why do this with the Bible and not the Koran or the Book of Mormon?

Let’s picture Al Mohler in a discussion with a Mormon. This Mormon holds to the position on the Book of Mormon that Mohler holds to on the Bible. Mohler goes and points out many archaeological difficulties with the Book of Mormon. The Mormon does not change his position. Why? Because he says he won’t allow any line of evidence from outside the Book of Mormon to conflict with the Book of Mormon.

Now Mohler goes to a Muslim. The Muslim is convinced that the Koran says that Jesus did not get crucified or die on a cross. Mohler goes to several lines of evidence to show that Jesus was crucified, but the Muslim is unconvinced. After all, no line of evidence outside of the Koran is allowed to contradict the Koran.

Are the Muslim and Mormon being unreasonable here? Yep. The sad thing is, so is Mohler. What is being said is a way of saying the double-theory of truth is true. By this, something could be true in the world outside of the Bible and something else contradictory true in the Bible. May it never be!

This is also one reason why I don’t say something like “Show me the bones of Jesus and I’ll abandon Christianity.” If we were to hypothetically say that Jesus never rose from the dead, it seems strange to think that not only would His bones be here, but that we could tell they were His bones. I instead ask people to give me a better explanation for the rise of the early church than the one that the church itself gave that explains the data agreed to by critical scholars.

If we want to evangelize people, it is disingenuous for us to tell them that they must be ready to abandon their worldview and accept ours upon conflicting evidence, but we are not doing the same. Some might think that that is a risk. It is only a risk if you think that Christianity could be false. If you are convinced you are right, it is not a risk. Even if you turned out to be wrong, you should be thankful. After all, who wants to believe something that is false?

I cannot go with the position of Mohler. I am convinced it is a blind faith and it makes inerrancy the central doctrine when the resurrection is. I believe in the Bible because I believe in the resurrection. I do not believe in the resurrection because I believe in the Bible.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Deeper Waters Podcast 11/15/2014: Lynn Wilder

What’s coming up on this Saturday’s episode of the Deeper Waters Podcast? Let’s dive into the Deeper Waters and find out!

Many of us have encountered Mormons. They’re those nice people with the white shirts, black ties, and name badges that identify themselves as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We often might see them as odd but not as non-Christians. This is such that even Glenn Beck’s material is carried in Christian book stores. But is this group really teaching the Jesus of the Bible?

My guest this week says no, and she’s in a position to know. She lived several years in the Mormon culture even having a position at BYU and her life changed forever when her son sent him a message while out on his mission one day. Who is she? She’s Lynn Wilder and she’s the author of Unveiling Grace which has a film out now as well and a web site. I have also reviewed Unveiling Grace here.

IMG_1845

Lynn’s story has already attracted national attention. She has been interviewed on the 700 Club. She has had stories shared in the Christian Post as well as Christianity Today. She’s done interviews for Janet Parshall, Michael Brown, a couple on Dove TV, plus interviews on the John Ankerberg show. She’s got several written testimonies about her and is the author of another book on seven reasons why she and her family left Mormonism.

My introduction to the work of Lynn came when I heard her on Unbelievable? I wasn’t sure what to expect and was for some reason I do not recall, somewhat skeptical. I was until I heard Lynn speak and realized this lady knew Mormonism backwards and forwards and she knew what to say to show that it does not line up with the message of Jesus. I was immediately in touch trying to get her on my show. (We had planned for earlier this year, but her father passed away and she had to cancel.)

I’ve also found Lynn to be a good friend as well with her being willing to talk on the phone with us when we’ve had a situation that we thought she could help with, and she did indeed help. Lynn is a scholar with her heart in the right place, something that is lacking in many, and in fact, to be personal, something I seek to improve on myself constantly.

Her book is the best book I have read on Mormonism as it gives you an inside-out view and as you read about her family in the book, you come to really know them as people and really learn to empathize with them, which is something rare for me to have happen being an aspie who just isn’t that good at empathy.

I’m excited to have Lynn Wilder be my guest this Saturday on the Deeper Waters Podcast and to let you all know about something else coming, next week, a band with some of her sons in it, Adam’s Road will be our guests so you’re going to get part one of a story this week and the rest next week. I hope you’ll be listening!

In Christ,
Nick Peters