© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
Dan, would you be willing to entertain for consideration the thought that even the hard miracles accord nature and to natural law? However, they would follow a level of knowledge and intellect that we mortals with our four-year-old-child level of understanding cannot grasp. If God is God because He completely understands and masters all laws of the universe, then anything that happens, with or without His intervention, would have to based on those same laws, oder?
My approach to atheist is to present relevant and easy to understand ideas about God, god. I give them what i deem the true meaning of the word god is as illustrated by the Master. One idea to hold to is the origin of the words that are used in the English dictionary which are sometimes directly affected by theology and the word god is affected also. The word God god is a title and only becomes a visible image either in the heart the mind or even tangible in the physical form when it is hinged to a person a idle a judge a creator or that which has dominitive power over that which chooses to be subjected to. Also i remind them that even if you say there is no one that has dominion over them that the universe itself is our god because if we are not submissive to its laws like drinking poison jumping off a cliff these acts of defiance could be well probably will be futile in our attempt to create our own rules that are in complete contradiction to its laws. I also say to them that a god is also one who gives us a higher knowledge longevity of life and quality of life. This reminds me of those atheist who are sitting out on the desert waiting for alien being s to come and give them those items l before mentioned. Then describe to them that looking at the evolution of science we ourselves could reach such potential as to colonize other habitable planets. I see that people in history take ownership over the term god to the point that if one speaks in a manner that is. Well look what Jesus of Nazareth said and He got hung on a cross for what He said. The word god is to unite like minded people also most of history has seen it’s devastation because of tyrannical rulers in the name of oppress and destroy in the name of god. When us Mormons as we are called confine God in the embodiment of Jesus or the Father this creates the hysteria in the minds of our well our opposition that if we are right then taking a line from Veggie Tales God is bigger than the boogie man creates an inferior state of the existence of power. Then I tell them of my undeniable experiences that proves that there is a Father who loves me and that also possess the proof from my experiences that Joseph Smith was absolutely a Prophet of that God who created my mortal existence and has the knowledge to bring to pass my immortality.
Dan;
There’s been some level of concern over your footnote # 12. Just so you’d know. 🙂 [link removed, but sent to Dan]
Thanks for calling that to my attention. One Mike Reed has launched threads on at least two online message boards about that footnote #12, suggesting, based on his reading of it, that I’m suffering from dementia.
Here’s the response that I posted on one of those boards:
“It’s very kind and respectful of Mike Reed to worry publicly about my mental health, and, thus, I apologize that I’m only now seeing the thread that he began on the subject here (but which now seems to be locked), as well as the twin thread that he launched on at least one other message board where, as he presumably knows, I haven’t posted for several years but where, as he also knows, defaming, mocking, and slandering me is a local passion.
“I don’t look in here — or at other message boards — as often as I once did, and, anyway, what with Education Week, several publishing deadlines, two evening plays, the endowment and marriage of a niece, the concomitant arrival of family members from out of state, and so forth, I haven’t had a lot of spare time over the past few days. Furthermore, of course, my moments of even minimal lucidity are few and far between lately, and are rapidly becoming even less frequent. I’ll need to take several pauses during the writing of this response, for example, to clean the drool from my keyboard.
“Mr. Reed’s concern about my neurological condition was triggered by this article, which appeared on Friday:
http://www.mormonint…sdfootnote12anc
“Plainly judging the rest of the article irrelevant to his professional mental health diagnosis, Mr. Reed focuses, laser-like, on footnote 12, in which I remark that ‘I’ve met very few non-Mormon scholars (at most, one or two) who have had even a nodding acquaintance with Mormon apologetic writing.’
“He regards that statement as so manifestly insane that the most likely explanation for it must surely be impaired brain function on my part.
“What, he demands to know in a follow-up post (on this board and at least one other), about such non-Mormon scholars as ‘Craig Hazen, Massimo Introvigne, Richard Mouw, Jerry Root, Carl Mosser, Paul Owen, Craig Blomberg, Jan Shipps, Michael Coe, Robert Ritner, Ron Huggins, Chris Smith, . . . Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe’?
“He might have asked me directly, of course. Professional mental health ethics, as I understand the field, typically expects that a diagnosis is only made — to say nothing of its being published! — after direct engagement with or examination of the patient.
“But I’ll overlook his somewhat unorthodox approach and respond to the question he raises and the examples he cites.
“Of those he lists, I’ve never (to the best of my recollection) actually met Ron Huggins or Robert Ritner, and I can’t recall having so much as encountered the name of Jerry Root. (I have no idea who he is.) I’ve met all of the others, though. So that’s not my defense.
“Here it is:
“In footnote 12, I wasn’t thinking at all about scholars — and I’ll include Chris Smith, Dan Vogel, and Brent Metcalfe in that category for the sake of discussion, despite the objection some might raise that, to this point anyhow, they lack some of the usually-required union papers — who focus on Mormonism solely or, for that matter, to any substantial degree. I had in mind Egyptologists, American historians, biblical archaeologists, Mesoamericanists, New Testament scholars, and other such academics more generally, who work in fields where Mormon “apologists” have had something to say because Mormonism makes claims in those areas. That there are non- and ex-Mormons who, for reasons of sectarian debate (in which, for the record, I include Messrs. Metcalfe, Vogel, and Ritner, as well as the more obvious Drs. Mouw, Blomberg, Hazen, etc.), have published on these subjects and who might even have professional credentials is so obvious that I would never dream of denying it.
“Moreover, although Craig Blomberg and Richard Mouw (both of whom I know and like) have read a fair amount of Mormon writing, I don’t think that they follow Mormon apologetic writing very closely. I know for a fact that Michael Coe doesn’t. Nor, absolutely, does Jan Shipps.
“My simple point was, simply, that non-LDS scholars generally and overwhelmingly pay no attention whatever to Mormon apologetics, and probably aren’t even aware that it exists. They scarcely know what Mormonism claims, and most likely only know Mormon ideas and doctrines vaguely or in somewhat garbled fashion and at second or third hand.
“I would have thought that Mr. Reed would have enjoyed that ‘admission,’ as a way of pointing out the cosmic insignificance of Mormonism. Certainly others would eagerly use it in that manner.
“For some reason, though, by contrast, Mr. Reed’s first inclination was to suggest that I’m suffering from dementia.
“As I say, he might have asked. Or he might have considered what the principle of interpretive charity could suggest to his mind.
“But he didn’t.
“Could the point of the footnote have been expressed more clearly? Likely so. I confess that Mr. Reed’s interpretation of it hadn’t occurred to me. I thought my point fairly obvious and uncontroversial.
“But, again, I thank him for his concern about my mental functioning.
“And now back to trying to figure out where the heck I am. This room looks familiar, somehow.”
Excellent response. The fact that he’s posting on other sites indicates to me that he knows he’s off base with his accusations. Keep posting, Dan.
Footnote 18’s discussion of the “new” Mormon Studies is worth an article all by itself. Apparently in the new way of doing things BYU favorably prints an article that asserts Brigham Young was frequently profane and prone to violent hyperbole, whatever that means. But that is not all. The article asserts that President Young became the leader of the Church because of his possession of “ritual power.” God had nothing to do with it apparently. But that still is not all. Church members had to endure President Young’s “episodic wrath” and cowered under his “constant berating.” There is no soft or hard miracle as to President Young, I guess, so far as the “new” Mormon Studies sees things. The article is at pages 188-96 of the new volume 1 [sic] that came out this year. It is appalling that BYU would give pages to such assassination by pen. Elder Maxwell, beloved Elder Maxwell, can only be ashamed that his name is linked to such trash. Shame on BYU.
I wouldn’t be telling the truth if I claimed not to share your concern.
Very Good.
Those who believe in the literal resurrection of Christ are best prepared to believe in the reality and truthfulness of the Gold Plates and the Book of Mormon, if they will study it and ask God about it. “For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance:” (Matthew 13:12; see also D&C 71:6).