I'll restate what I meant about "Moreover, it's not knee-jerk political correctness if it is something that really is wrong. If it didn't exist in the Tanakh but really was an idea created by Joseph Smith and his followers in the zeitgeist of early American racism, then why would it not be wrong to condemn it? It clearly associates skin color with evil, and that is racism at its core." First, it was a hypothetical question, and second, he may have invented it insofar as it was religious doctrine. Where it previously existed it was simply the aberrant belief of certain individuals as opposed to a belief held as part of a religion. So if in fact Smith make it part of a religious scheme, then it is likely that it came out of that zeitgeist. You yourself have said previously that you believe in moral absolutes, so that if something is REALLY wrong (that is, objectively wrong), then it is ALWAYS wrong. For example, most people would agree that raping a baby is always wrong. It is wrong all the time and everywhere. Is it not also wrong to say "It is true that person X is less than person Y for the only reason that X has darker skin color than Y"?
Moreover, when I asked for the source, while you say the belief existed in some form for about a century before Smith, insofar as LDS doctrines are concerned it came from an alleged divine revelation to Smith? Therefore it really has no human antecedents other than Smith, even if some people believed it a hundred years before him. It's certainly not found in the Bible, for instance. So IF Smith did not receive divine revelation for the claim that the Mark of Cain was black skin, then would it not be a clear example of racism?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that Smith got his views from anyone else. But they didn't "originate" with him either. You keep saying this or that "is not found in the Bible or Tanakh." And
that's where you keep missing the point. The LDS contention is a whole host of things are not found in our modern day Bible. Many "plan and precious" truths related to the Gospel were lost or corrupted down through the centuries. As Joseph said, "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, and designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors."
He received a commission from the Lord to undergo an inspired translation of the Bible. He was killed before the work could be completed but he was able to bring about many things previously lost, including the writings of Moses no longer found in Genesis. In another undertaking, he was able to translate the writings of Abraham. From these we see that, indeed, the mark of Cain was a skin of blackness.
Now you may choose not to believe this but, as I said, to keep arguing that it isn't found in the Bible or some ancient texts (typically found in various incomplete scraps) today is to miss the point entirely.
The LDS claim of restoration assumes that something was lost in the first place. Contrary to your assertions, the early church taught the same essential doctrinal beliefs as found in the New Testament.
When you say "the early church," what do you mean? Because the LDS contention is that the apostasy of the Church was well under way even before the Apostles were all killed off (except for John of course). And there are many differences between the belief of the early Christians and what Christian dogma would later become. Not only the nature of the Godhead, but also such things as the nature of Lucifer, premortal life, the creation, how salvation comes about, continuous revelation, the three degrees of glory, man's divine nature and ability to become gods, etc.
That mistranslation of Joseph Smith, "the head of the gods" is laughable. Ask any Hebrew scholar if that's found in any Tanakh. It's not there. You can look at the Masoretic texts that are used for Old Testament sourcing as well as the Greek Septuagint. The Shema, "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One" ("Adonai Eleheinu, Adonai Echad") has always been understood by Jews to mean that God is the ONLY ONE GOD.
That's why Judaism is and has always been monotheistic. And Jews and Christians are fully aware that Elohim is plural, that doesn't mean it gets translated as "head of the gods."
Who shall I ask? More to the point, who should I believe? A prophet of God who had the inspiration of the Holy Ghost or Hebrew scholars who, despite their study of scripture, don't even know who their Messiah is?
As for a Jew saying "it would ruin the Bible." Yeah, right. Too bad Smith didn't provide us with the name of his Jew so that we could investigate his claim.
Would that have made any difference to you? The names and testimonies of 11 other men who saw the gold plates were given and many are not convinced.
As for modern Judaism being apostate Christianity, I didn't write anything about modern Judaism. I wrote about ancient Judaism, so that's just a red herring.
It's simplistic to say "ancient Judaism," as ancient Israel went through various cycles of apostasy and restoration.
Christianity is and always has been monotheistic, contrary to that bogus assertion that Emperor Constantine changed things at the Council of Nicea. Early church fathers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria also taught monotheism years before the Council of Nicea.
Early Christianity was not a mix of Christianity with paganism. If it was, then it would have been polytheistic like Mormonism. Look at the ancient religions of Greece, Rome, Scandinavia and India and you will see that they were/are all polytheistic. So if anything, Mormonism is far closer to paganism than Christianity is. That's the primary reason that Christian denominations reject Mormonism, because it is polytheistic. Anyway, that bogus charge has been disproven by scholars like J. Gresham Machen, Ronald H. Nash and others. It's the same sort of pseudoscholarly claim made by people like Dan Brown. The same garbage pops up every few years despite the fact that the scholarship that disproves it gets better and better with time.
I posted this because, in addition to being quicker, explains it better than I could:
Detailed AnalysisAlmost invariably when someone claims Mormons are polytheists, they are not seeking a clear explanation of Mormon thought on the nature of God, but are simply using a word with negative connotations in our religious culture as a club to intimidate or confuse others. Consider, for example, a conversation that Evangelical Christian author Richard Abanes, in his book Becoming Gods (pp. 107-8), claims to have had with a LDS bishop:
Abanes: "Don't you believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?"
Bishop: "We certainly do, and they are one God."
Abanes: "Don't you believe the Father is a god?"
Bishop: "Yes, of course."
Abanes: "And the Son is a god?"
Bishop: "Yes"
Abanes: "And the Holy Ghost is a god."
Bishop: "Yes"
Abanes: "That's three gods."
Bishop: "No, they're one God."
The author goes on to describe that he felt he had entered some sort of Twilight Zone scenario, and goes on to declare all Mormons "polytheists." Yet, any Latter-day Saint, upon reading the conversation outlined above, would recognize the creation of a simplified version, or "strawman," of LDS belief. One might also seriously consider how an Evangelical Christian would answer these same questions. The reality is certainly more complex than the "strawman" above would lead us to believe.
There really is not a single word that adequately captures LDS thought on the nature of God. Pertinent key technical terminology includes the following:
Monotheism (belief that there is only one God)
Tritheism (understanding the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as distinct Gods)
Polytheism (worship of, or belief in, more than one God)
Henotheism (worship of one God without denying the existence of other Gods; also called Monolatry)
Trinitarianism (belief that God consists of three Persons in one substance)
Social Trinitarianism (belief that the oneness of the three Persons is not one of substance but is social in nature [e.g., unity of thought, etc.])
Modalism (belief that there is only one God that does not exist as three separate Persons but rather manifests itself in three different "modes" [i.e., as Father, Son, or Holy Ghost])
Usually the very same people who are pressing the case that Mormons are polytheists are some stripe of Evangelical Christians who claim to be monotheists. But Trinitarians are not Monotheists by definition (just ask a Jew or Muslim).
The facts that the LDS do not believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in substance, and believe in deification/theosis (that humans may eventually become deified and become partakers in the divine nature), has been used to paint Mormons as polytheists. When we examine the technical terminology above, though, it becomes clear that a key point of demarcation is worship versus acknowledgment of existence. If members of the Church worshiped an extensive pantheon like the Greeks or Romans, then the label would be appropriate. In the context of doctrinal differences over the relationship among the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, however, or the doctrine of deification (which is a profoundly Christian doctrine and not just a Mormon one), use of the word "polytheistic" as a pejorative is both inaccurate and inappropriate.
Instead of using a single-word label, one must actually articulate the belief (using fully-developed sentences or paragraphs). The single-word label that will adequately describe the full breadth of LDS thought on the nature of God has yet to be coined.
Are Christians monotheists?Any discussion with Jews or Muslims will quickly demonstrate no Christian is, strictly speaking, a monotheist.
One of the chief objections by Jews and Muslims is Christians are polytheists. Most brands of Christians insist on the divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In addition, the very word those who crafted the great ecumenical creeds used to describe the deity of Jesus, his Father and the Holy Spirit is "trinity," meaning three. Additionally, they insisted the three Persons should not be confounded, as such would be deemed modalism (one of the primary heresies that led to the formation of the ecumenical creeds and various confessions). Modalism often insists the one God merely appears to us in three different ways (i.e., as Father, Son and Holy Spirit), and this is exactly what the creeds deny.
Human deification and monotheismThe Bible contains language indicating human beings can put on the divine nature and be called "gods" (see John 10:33, 34; Ps. 82:6, Deut. 10:17, etc.). They are instructed to become one with Jesus just as he is one with his Father. The key point to realize is that any existence of other beings with godly attributes has no effect on who Latter-day Saints worship. According to Jeff Lindsay, a popular LDS online apologist:
We worship God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ - not glorious angels or Abraham or Moses or John the Baptist, no matter how great they may be in the kingdom of heaven as sons of God who have become "like Christ" (1 Jn 3:2). The only reasonable definition of polytheism requires that plural gods be worshiped - but the beings that Christ calls "gods" are not who we worship at all. In terms of worship, we are properly called monotheists.
Additionally, there is abundant evidence of deification being taught by various commonly accepted Christians. If belief in theosis makes one a polytheist, many Christians would have to be so labeled - including such figures as C. S. Lewis and John Calvin. Clearly, this is not the way in which the term "polytheist" is normally used, but critics of the Church are often willing to be inconsistent if the Church can be made to look alien or "unchristian."
"Monotheism" is sufficiently broad to include the kind of oneness enjoyed by the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as well as that promised to those who become one with them when fully sanctified.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/PolytheismSince Smith so quickly condemned all Christian churches as corrupt and an abomination, Mormons shouldn't complain when members of those churches call him a false prophet and LDS a false religion. As they say, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" and "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." That was a pretty good size rock Smith threw at every church then in existence, so of course there will be anti-LDS sites and organizations. The question is: Are they accurate or not, not just poisoning the well by saying, "Well, those are claims made by anti-Mormon groups, so we can dismiss them."
Of course you're going to take the approach above
if you believe that it was Joseph Smith who condemned all Christian churches as corrupt and an abomination. But is that what his history says? No. It was the resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ, who said that.
And
that's where we get to the heart of the matter. Does one believe what Joseph Smith said about seeing the Father and the Son? Are they sincere seekers of the truth and have they humbly read and prayed to know for themselves whether the Book of Mormon is true or not?
On my mission, they often reminded us that anyone who could be brought
into the Church through reason and argument could also be brought
out of the Church through reason and argument. But it was the witness of the Holy Spirit that truly converts. Many of my companions forgot that and tried to debate on various points of doctrine without much success. That's why so many so-called Biblical scholars often don't believe the Bible to be historical fact. And why the Bible, Book of Mormon, and other scripture are essentially closed books to those who approach them with the requisite faith and humility. Someone like yourself can study all the religions of the world, and have a library of books in your collection, but you're simply "ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth."
