Old Files Philosophy of Mormonism

1
Philosophyof
Mormonism
by Travis Wayne Goodsell

2
Table of Contents
Introduction
Part 1: Philosophical Basics
Basic Philosophical Terminology
Logic
Truths
Fallacies
Ethics
The Divine Command Moral Theory
The Traditional Christian God
David Hume
Epistemology and Ethics
Part 2: Epistemological Origins of Mormonism
Part 3: Mormon Theology
Part 4: Logical Illiteracy
Illiteracy errors due to fallacious logic
Bibliography for part 1
Acknowledgments for part 1
Reference List for part 2

4
Introduction
I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I come from a family who
is also LDS (also called Mormon). My third great-grandfather, John Solomon Fullmer was the
one who spent the last night with the founding prophet Joseph Smith, was called on a secret
mission by Joseph, and who gave Joseph his gun which Joseph used in his attempt to defend
himself against the hostile mob of people who assassinated him the next morning. I also was
baptized at eight years old in accordance with LDS traditional practice. The Church does not
baptize infants because they are innocent of any sin and covered by the atonement of Jesus
Christ.
I attended four years of Early Morning Seminary as a teenager; was an Eagle Scout; and
served a Church Service Mission to New York, New York. I went to Ricks College, now called
BYU Idaho, where my parents gave me my initial collection of my own of LDS reference
material. I took almost all of the religion courses offered.
Then I went to the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada. There I started my education
in Philosophy of Science where we studied the arguments for and against the Christian God and
about logical argumentative formulas. I was warned by my LDS Institute instructors not to take
Philosophy of Science because I will lose my faith in the LDS Church. They were mistaken.
Instead I discovered that the religion and doctrine that Joseph Smith restored was not only a new
theory for theological philosophy, but also with moral philosophy. And that it was not listed as
its own theoretical model.
My Philosophy of Science teacher said that when it comes to discoveries ―you don‘t have to
be the best, you just have to be the first.‖ Though Joseph Smith is the discoverer of these
theories I‘m presenting, I‘m apparently the first in over 185 years to turn it into a scientific
manner of speech.
This book is broken down into four parts. The first part deals with the basic scientific lessons
that go back before Aristotle. I assembled them all together in order to form the template for a
discussion of Mormon Philosophy. The second part deals with a book I wrote originally titled:
Mormon Illiteracy, but it caused too great a controversy in The Church. Mormons have
developed traditions of belief that run contrary to the actual doctrine represented in scripture. So
I present what I have come across, being a lifetime Mormon, and have classified the different
types of ‗illiteracies‘. These classifications are of my own creation in order to be scientific about
the discussion. The third part deals with a class paper I wrote that I felt was appropriate to add to
the theme of the book. And the forth part explains Mormon Theology in a philosophical manner.
Every LDS member knows the Theology, but may not grasp the logical significance to make the
connection and explain it to others not of the faith.
I hope my education removed any biases by being a member of The Church. Yet at the same
time, it is probably argued that the best one to give a review of the Philosophy of Mormonism is
one of its own members. The problem is if there are any illiteracies from among those I list that
I might unknowingly be guilty of. Thus is why I included the template of basic Philosophical
and logical education. But I do have to say that what Joseph restored as he calls it, is brilliant in
its concept. It answers all of the theological, moral, and philosophical questions posed to any
and all Churches and Religions. It makes one wonder why anyone would remain in a religion
that wasn‘t logical.

5
Part 1:
Philosophical
Basics

6
Basic
Philosophical
Terminology

7
Philosophy is the love of wisdom. The word comes from the Greeks who were known for
their great philosophical minds which still deeply influence the world today.
PHILO = love SOPHY = wisdom
It is the search for truth, rather than the vain discussion of relativistic opinions, as an outsider
may be inclined to believe. As such it does not need to be, nor is it, threatening to The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. All truth can use philosophy to verify its claims. There are
several categories within the study of philosophy.
LOGIC – mathematical and deductive formulations of human speech
EPISTEMOLOGY – ―study of knowledge‖, theoretical study from logical formulations
METAPHYSICS – ―changes in nature‖; ontology – ―study of existence and action‖
ETHICS – morality or spirituality (right and wrong/good and evil)

8
Basic Philosophical Terminology
Argument: discussion of a proposition
Burden of proof: The requirement to provide strong evidence for, rather than against an
argument
Confirmation: Not proof, but inductive support from a successful theoretical test
Deduction: The truth of a conclusion resulting from the truth of the premises.
Deontology: The ethical study of what our universalized duty should be
Descriptive: Reporting of facts that describe how things are.
Dogma: Rationalizing one‘s faith as true beyond reason and evidence
Fallacy: An invalid argumentative formulation where the conclusion is not deduced by the
premises.
Falsified: An anomaly in observation of empirical consequences requiring a re-evaluation of a
hypothesis for a construction of a new testable theory
Hypothesis: proposal of supposition
Premise: a statement claiming to be fact
Prescriptive: An evaluative or judgmental claim as to how things ought to be.
Propaganda: Biased or misleading information designed to promote a point of view.
Rhetoric: Persuasive language lacking meaningful content.
Sound: an argument in which all of the premises seem reasonably true
Theory: set of testable statements of observable consequences
Universal: Applicable to all people in all places at all times.
Valid: an argument in which if the proposed premises are correct the conclusion cannot be false

10
LOGIC
Much of the time our normal everyday speech is not spoken in a logical formula. So the
following is a chart that shows what some of our language would equal in philosophical
terminology.
Example: I will go to the store, unless it is closed. = P unless Q = If not Q then P = If the store
is not closed, then I will go.
Standardization Chart:
P unless Q = If not Q then P
P provided that Q = If Q then P
P if Q = If Q then P
P only if Q = If not Q then not P
P in case Q = If Q then P
P given that Q = If Q then P
P whenever Q = If Q then P
There are always alternative deductions from our speech that is not expressed directly. The
following chart shows the alternative equivalent meanings.
Equivalency Chart: (not = ~) (= = equivalent)
P or Q = ~P and ~Q
P and Q = ~P or ~Q
~(P or Q) = P or Q
~P or Q = P and ~Q
~P and ~Q = P or Q
Every statement that is written or spoken by anyone is either true or false. Such statements
can be written into the form of an argument, and then be simplified into deductive equations.
Truths are merely valid arguments, rather than accurate statements. Conclusions are falsified by
providing at least one valid counter-argument for any one of its premises, so that the deduction
of the conclusion becomes invalid and unsound. If no counter-argument can be made against
any one of the premises, then the conclusion is deductively true. Arguments against the
conclusion alone are invalid, or also called fallacies (see FALLACIES: ‘Denying the
Conclusion‘).

12
TRUTHS
Modus Ponens Examples:
If P then Q If I have a vision from God, then it
P will come to pass
Therefore Q I have had a vision from God
Therefore it will come to pass
Modus Tollens
Not Q will come to pass
Therefore not P A vision did not come to pass
Therefore it was not from God
Hypothetical Syllogism
If Q then R will come to pass
Therefore if P then R If it comes to pass it will be good
Therefore if I have a vision from
God, then it will be good
Constructive Dilemma
P or Q Either I will obey a vision from God,
If P then R or I will obey the commandments
If Q then R If I will obey a vision from God, then
Therefore R I will be good
If I will obey the commandments,
then I will be good
Therefore I will be good
Exportation
If P then (if Q then R) If I have a vision then if I
Therefore if P and Q then R fulfill it then I will be good
Therefore if I have a vision
and I fulfill it, then I will
be good
Contraposition
If P then Q If I have a vision then I am
Therefore if not Q then not P good
Therefore if I am not good,
Then I had no vision

14
FALLACIES
Denying the Antecedent
Not P will come to pass
Therefore not Q I did not have a vision from God
Therefore it will not come to pass
Affirming the Consequences
Q will come to pass
Therefore P It came to pass
Therefore it was a vision from God
Denying the Conclusion
If P then Q If I have a vision, then it will come
P to pass
Therefore not Q I had a vision
Therefore it will not come to pass
Other Fallacies:
Equivocation: Using two different conceptions as if they were the same. Using general
terminology that can be defined by more than one definition.
Hasty Generalization: Proposing that most or all are the same condition as one or few.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc: Assuming that just because something follows another, it must
therefore be the cause.
Faulty Test: Using an incorrect, inaccurate, or contaminated test, as if it were correct and
accurate, to support one‘s argument.
Ad Hominem: Disregard someone‘s proposition on the basis of an irrelevant and negative
characteristic.
Tu Quo Que: Does not practice what is preached.
Straw man: Creating characteristics and attributes to something not proven to exist.
Begging the Question or Circular Reasoning: Using the conclusion of an argument to support
the truth of a premise of the same argument.
Ad Populum: Appealing to someone‘s popularity or popular opinion (common sense).

15
Ad Vericordium: Appealing to the wrong authority.
Inverse Gambler: To propose an outcome on the assumption that chance will render it more
probable due to previous unsuccessful rolls of the dice.
Genetic: Invalidate by showing a non-causal origin.
Excessive Footnotes or Name Dropping: Quoting an excessive number of authorities, rather
than focusing on the relevant issue.
False Dichotomy: Neglecting other potential explanations.
False Dilemma: Proposing only two options.
Bloated Conclusions or Far Fetched Hypothesis: An argument in which the conclusion does
not deductively follow from the premises. Claiming the conclusion is the best possible
explanation, without direct confirmation.
Appeal to Emotion: Proposing that one‘s emotional feelings reasonably state the truth of a fact.
Appeal to Analogy: Proposing an induction from a symbolic analogy rather than a deduction
from a realistic and relevant analogy to state the truth of a fact.
Positive Instances: Only recognizing components of statements or arguments that coincides
with their preconceptions.
Composition: Infers that the whole is true from the truth of a part of the whole.
Suppressed Correlative: Out of two options the one is made impossible, so that the other is the
only option.
Misplaced Concreteness: Mistaking an abstract belief, opinion or concept as a physical reality.
Single Causation: Believing in a single cause.
X occurred after Y
Therefore Y caused X
Slippery Slope: Inferring that an event will inevitably occur without explaining the premises
that lead to such a conclusion.
Event X has/might/will occur
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen

16
Division: What is true for the whole must all be true of all or some of its parts.

18
ETHICS
There are a variety of theories about what is moral and what we ought to morally do and/or be.
As one will see the ethical theory of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not
fall under any of these classifications, though one may be tempted to identify parts within each.
Also each of these theories have several objections by other philosophers, which if their counter-
arguments cannot be disproved then the theory should be discarded as a legitimate usable theory
as discussed under LOGIC. This however would mean that each moral theory listed should be
discarded, each having several counter-arguments, and new ones be proposed in their stead.
1. OBJECTIVISM – the ethical theory that morality/spirituality can be obtained by
at least one universal standard.
2. TELEOLOGY – the moral study of the consequences of actions.
3. UTILITARIANISM – Do that which produces a greater amount of pleasure or
happiness (utility) over pain or sorrow for the greatest number of people. There are three
types:
ACT – measurement of the utility of an action
RULE – measurement of the utility of a rule or standard (social laws)
END – measurement of the utility of an action‘s consequence in a given condition
OBJECTIONS:
- wrong actions to justify ends; Absolutism: some actions are just wrong
- feelings show real morality; people naturally avoid doing evil
- moral people troubled by moral dilemmas – ―Dirty Hands‖/‖lesser of two evils‖
- must sacrifice individual interests and desires
- long term utility is unforeseeable; projections may turn out wrong
- there is no moral objective standard; no moral right or wrong
- there is no personal integrity; okay to break promises if serving greater good
- others may be used as means to an end
- lack of personal responsibility
- subjective individual action
- practiced moral relativity or hedonism creating conflict
- arbitrary calculation of utility by different individuals
- no moral distinction between active and passive acts
- self destructive: everyone breaks promises with long term results of no trust at all
- leisure activities are wrong
- limited knowledge to measure utility
- short, mid-, and long term consequences differ
ii. VIRTUISM – Development of personal character. Consistent actions stem from
character.

19
OBJECTIONS:
- who are our role models? Seems too subjective a choice
- virtuous criminals
- hypocrisy recognized as virtue and thus praised, true virtue punished and ignored
- traditional religion: virtues of pride, power and strength are morally wrong
- contradictory: be by doing, do by being
- what is the mean between two virtue extremes?
- what actions are to be done?
- quantity of virtues required for a virtuous character
- quality of virtue required for a virtuous character
- one bad deed does not count against a person as a whole character (child rape)
iii. CONSEQUENTIALISM – Do that which produces a good result
OBJECTIONS:
- bad intentions and acts that inadvertently produce good results
- good results are produced by chance; they are unpredictable
- inconsistency of intentions and acts to be performed to produce the same good results
- no standard for what constitutes a good result

20
B. DEONTOLOGY – the moral study of duty.
4. KANTIANISM – Doing one‘s duty which is sought independent of the self, through
reason.
OBJECTIONS:
- individual desires are neglected
- individual intuition and feelings are neglected
- who determines what to do? Or how can everyone come to the same conclusion?
- how does what to do get determined?
- moral facts are not moral but are descriptions as with aesthetics
- moral facts are not facts but are subjective opinions
- conflicting objective morals
- too much thinking when immediate action is called for
- no self-interests, thus being moral is not a desire or preference
- lack of opportunity to perform one‘s duty
- someone always good on equal level with someone always internally tempted
- may produce bad or worse consequences
- need law in order to define a crime, yet if everyone commits the crime then the law has no
force or meaning
ii. ABSOLUTISM – Subject to a tyrant‘s will.
OBJECTIONS:
- forced to become Utilitarians in moral dilemmas
- moral luck: not suffering consequences by not getting caught
- not getting opportunity to commit act when pre-disposed
- lesser punishment for failure in wrong actions than in success
- enforced by fear
- who declares and interprets law?
- who determines law?
- how do others objectively know what to do?
- followers suffer to support the leader and government (national security means protecting
the institution of the government not the citizens)
- arbitrary commands – may ask to kill
- conflict with other views of morality (other religions)
- contradictory in punishment: kill the killer; steal from the thief
- proof of existence of source of laws needed

21
iii. DIVINE COMMAND – Subject to a representative of a God‘s will.
OBJECTIONS:
- forced to become Utilitarians in moral dilemmas
- moral luck: not suffering consequences by not getting caught
- not getting opportunity to commit act when pre-disposed
- lesser punishment for failure in wrong actions than in success
- enforced by fear
- who declares and interprets law?
- who determines law?
- how do others objectively know what to do?
- followers suffer to support the leader and government (national security means protecting
the institution of the government not the citizens)
- arbitrary commands – may ask to kill
- conflict with other views of morality (other religions)
- contradictory in punishment: kill the killer; steal from the thief
- proof of existence of source of laws needed

22
II. NON-OBJECTIVISM – the ethical theory that morality/spirituality is not
universal, but is obtained by individual or cultural opinions.
5. RELATIVISM – Morality, either present or in the past is subjective to habit. There
are two types:
CULTURAL – Established habits of a culture represent the moral norm.
INDIVIDUAL – Established personal habits represent morality
OBJECTIONS:
- clashing of different morals
- sub-cultures morally conflicting
- moral anarchy
- objectivism: social contract theory – objectively agree not to kill one another
- moral advancement not possible
- creativity is discriminated and not tolerated
- not tolerant of others not tolerating moral autonomy
- lack of personal responsibility
- how big must a culture be?
- self-proclaimed morality
- how does the initial cause of habit occur?
- modus tollens argument
i. If there is an absolute or objective shape of the earth, then people will not disagree about
the shape of the earth.
ii. People disagree of the shape of the earth.
c. Therefore there is no absolute or objective shape of the earth.
B. HEDONISM – Do what is best for you.
OBJECTIONS:
- preferences and desires change over time
- uncertainty about true preferences and desires
- unknown or unrealized desires and preferences missed out on
- Utilitarianism: sacrifice of desires and preferences may result in greater happiness which
would be more desirable or preferable
- moral anarchy

23
C. INTUITIONISM – Follow one‘s intuitive desires and aspirations.
OBJECTIONS:
- justify intuition as reason
- rationalize to do evil
- good intentions, but with bad consequences
- people are human and make mistakes
- subject to false beliefs
- subject to cultural transmission
- subject to hasty generalizations
- subject to childhood deprivations
- subjective to the individual
- people‘s desires and aspirations change over time, thus no objective standard
D. EMOTIVISM – Follow one‘s own feelings as to what is morally good.
OBJECTIONS:
- justify feelings as reason
- rationalize to do evil
- good intentions, but with bad consequences
- people are human and make mistakes
- subject to false beliefs
- subject to cultural transmission
- subject to hasty generalizations
- subject to childhood deprivations
- subjective to the individual
- people‘s feelings change over time and experience; thus no objective standard

24
The
Divine Command
Moral Theory

25
The Divine Command Moral Theory has been an ethical position as far back as the Greek
moral philosophers. Euthyphro‘s problem, developed by the Greek philosopher, Plato, for
example, has been a major dilemma for theologians and philosophers since that time. Other
philosophers, even in more modern times, have developed new approaches to revive the Divine
Command Moral Theory in connection with the traditional Christian religion. Still, however,
other counter-arguments not only show a failure of the moral theory, but even demonstrate that
the divine moral commander of the traditional Christian God, Himself, is in doubt.
The Divine Command Moral theory is: ―Whatever God commands is moral‖ or ―X is wrong,
if and only if, it is contrary to God‘s commands‖. In reference to God, He is the traditional
Christian conception of a supreme being. So as a divine commander there is also a clear cut
standardization of laws and justice to be implemented, obeyed, and adhered to. Failure to
comply is not tolerated with the installation of fear to demand respect and obedience through
threats of severe punishments, either in this life or in the next life beyond death. And yet, with
this, there is an indication that there may not be any morality involved for people to aspire.
Plato, in one of his dialogues1 between Socrates and Euthyphro, has a discussion of whether
what is right is due to the command of the gods or because an action is right in and of itself.
Euthyphro was to prosecute his father for murder. His case is based upon the actions of Greek
Gods who punish others of the Gods for wrong doing. And in the end it becomes a discussion
about the nature of piety and love. The problem Euthyphro poses is whether something is pious
and loved because the Gods command it, or whether what the Gods command is pious and loved
because it is pious and loved?
If morality is the Gods‘ command, or in the case of the traditional Christian God; if morality is
in His commands, then morality is arbitrary. There is no set pattern or formula to determine

26
what is right or wrong, except as God commands. Mankind must blindly follow by dogmatic
faith, and trust that whatever God commands will be moral, even if it seems to be harmful or a
cause of suffering and evil. Does God then, under such conditions, therefore command evil? Or
is what we consider as evil actually moral in some supernatural explanation?
However, if morality is moral independently of God, then morality is inconsistent with the
examples of evil in the world. God then would neither be the cause of evil, nor is He permitting
evil. Since under this condition, morality is independent of God, so too would be evil. God
would not be the cause of morality, nor would He be the cause of evil. And since, under this
condition, morality is to be sought independently from the need for a God, so too then does evil
get extinguished by the powers available to mankind. Evil then does not require adherence to a
divine commander‘s morality to be removed from the world.
William Lane Craig arguing in defense of the traditional Christian God as a Divine moral
commander attempts to show that morality, however, is in such an independently objective state.
This objective morality of God is to argue for God‘s actual existence.
―If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Objective moral values exist.
Therefore, God exists.‖
(Craig & Sinnott-Armstrong, 2004, p. 19)
God, as a divine commander, must therefore be a moral absolutist. So to have Him, who is
synonymous with moral absolutivism, be compared with having objective morality, is
misleading in concept. This then is the fallacy of equivocation. For absolute moral values are
such that are commanded by a being and must be obeyed; whereas objective moral values are
independent of any being and obtainable by anyone who seeks after them.

27
If Craig, however, is trying to switch his position and say that God actually is a moral
objectivist, then he still commits the fallacy of equivocation. By switching the type of God from
the traditional Christian God, who is a divine commander, to a being who directs mortals to seek
morality independent of Him, is likewise equivocate. And then, of course, as a moral objectivist,
God serves no purpose to man, who need to bypass Him in order to obtain morality.
Another major difficulty in accepting God‘s divine moral commands as moral is the problem
of evil. God as the traditional Christian divine commander has characteristics of omnipotence
(all-powerful), omniscience (all-knowing), and omni-benevolence (all good/loving). David
Hume, in his book on natural religion, used the character Philo to ask the question about this type
of God: ―Is he (God) willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent? Is he able, but
not willing? Then is he malevolent? Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?‖ (Hume,
1779, ppgs. 108-9) The full argument can be written out as:
God is all knowing (omniscient)
God is all good/loving (omni-benevolent)
God is all powerful (omnipotent)
If God is all knowing then God knows evil exists.
If God is all good/loving then God wants to eliminate evil.
If God is all powerful then God can eliminate evil.
Evil exists.
Therefore God either does not know evil exists, is impotent
to prevent evil, or does not want to eliminate evil.
This logical argument from evil points out the problem of how can evil exist when God, as an
all loving divine moral commander, exists and has the power to do something about it. There is,
of course, the contradiction of God being assigned mortal, or natural, characteristics when He is
in fact infinite, or supernatural. God becomes the creation of a ―straw man‖ fallacy, that of
ascribing attributes and a character to something not real and that therefore cannot be falsifiable
in order to prove truthful. But most importantly is how can anyone follow the morality of such

28
an unprovable God, or One that has not sufficient power to enforce His divine commands? Is
such morality really moral, or is it just the enforcement of religious leaders imposing their will?
Christians nevertheless have adopted the concept of Free Moral Will to justify the co-
existence of both God as a divine moral commander and of evil. Free moral will is God‘s
supposed gift to mankind to choose to follow His divine moral commands or to choose to do and
be evil. But as an absolutist God‘s moral commands are not to be challenged. Free moral will
weakens God‘s power to control his creations to have them obey His moral will. Even if God
permits evil in accordance with some plan, it indicates either an impotence, or a malevolence, on
His part. This argument too commits the fallacy of equivocation by altering the character of God
from all loving moral commander to a God permitting evil. Even if God were to reward the
faithful at a later time, this does not change the fact that God still allows the existence of, and
permits evil in the current lives of mankind. A moral God would not allow any evil, at any
degree, to even exist.
Robert Merrihew Adams‘ contribution was to try and support the Divine Command Moral
theory to emphasize that God is loving. And as a loving God, He therefore, will not command
any evil.2 But this only makes the situation of morality more complicated in explaining the
existence of evil. This emphasis forces the idea that any evil that does exist in the world is not
really morally wrong. If the works of mortals, once considered as evil, are now twisted to mean
God‘s divine will, then there would be no punishment for sinful acts or people, nor a need for a
myth of Hell to scare people to obey. God‘s will is predestined as a moral obedience by
mankind, meaning that mortal life is already predictable and in accordance with God‘s ultimate
will. Criminal and wicked behavior would actually be obedient, righteous behavior found
acceptable to God‘s eternal and mysterious purposes.

29
Craig too in his defense of God‘s goodness in a world overrun by apparent evil, discusses that
God has ―morally sufficient reasons for the suffering...‖ (Craig, Armstrong; 2004, p. 119.) The
idea is that there is a ―future compensation‖ that will be rewarded to mankind. But what we have
here is a major fallacy of begging the question. One cannot assume that God permits or justifies
evil and suffering simply because He is God. Nor can it be assumed that as God, evil and
suffering are permitted or justified because He is moral and loving. Why, as an all-good and all
powerful divine moral commander, does God permit evil to exist at all? And why as an all
loving and all-powerful being does God at least lessen the amount of evil? Or what good reason
is there to believe that all of the apparent evil and suffering is not actually bad?
Sinnott-Armstrong responds to Craig by giving what he calls the evidential argument from
evil instead of the logical argument from evil. The evidential argument from evil is an inductive
argument incorporating analogy that allows for a justified amount of evil to exist along with
God. Armstrong knows of the fallacies involved with using this argument, but uses this
approach to show that even after this manner of analogy, the argument still cannot support the
existence of a moral God.
Much, if not most, evil would be prevented by moral acts of commission of a parent.
Likewise should one then expect God to abide by the same standard, especially if that standard
were commanded by Him. But also a parent who permits evil to occur to their child by an act of
omission would also be guilty of evil, having neglected a moral responsibility to protect their
child. This too should be expected moral behavior of a God who is instead said to permit evil to
happen and most especially due to his divine commands.
But as a divine moral commander, God is guilty of immoral acts of commission. Evil that
results on earth is then not permitted but actually caused by God. Even if God offers a future

30
compensation it still does not avoid the issue that as a divine commander, God is an initial
causation of morality and evil. What is perceived to be permitted is actually a causal result of
God‘s divine moral will. Adams‘ conception of a loving God, who would never cause or permit
evil, still does not explain the existence of evil. For as a loving divine commander, God is the
cause of the evil, which contradicts the essence of being morally loving.
The attachment of human attributes and characteristics to God, such as moral love, is called
anthropomorphism. The traditional conception of the Christian God, however, is that He is not
human, but a supernatural substance or essence. Attaching morality, even as an all loving God,
is to make Him human. Even the pronoun use of ‗Him‘ is also such a use. At its core, it is a
fallacy of begging the question to assume that God is of human form and in possession of human
attributes and characteristics. In this way a divine commander would not need to possess
morality or even to command because it is moral to do so. It is this type of characteristic that
receives the theist response that morality is for humans, but God is above it; that as humans we
cannot comprehend the ways and plans of a supernatural being.
As a supernatural being there is a self-refuting fallacy that also occurs with this God.
Empirical truth requires a metaphysical necessity to establish existence. Adams speaks of this
type of knowledge concerning the composition of water as H2O. The substance, with two parts
hydrogen and one part oxygen, is always water regardless of what it is named. Morality for
Adams is supposed to contain such a type of this metaphysical reality. But if God, as a
supernatural being, does not conform to this metaphysical existence, how then can His morality,
or the morality we attach to His commands, be expected to apply? And this is without again
discussing the major argumentative fallacies previously discussed.
And finally the traditional conception of the Christian God raises issues about not only other

31
religions and moral non-religious groups, but also the many variations of Christianity itself.
Why should all other beliefs in morality be wrong when compared to this one view? Or why
should the divine moral commander be accepted over other Gods of other religious faiths? How
is the morality of the traditional Christian God as a divine commander accessed by the world and
especially the followers? How is God divine moral commands to be imposed upon humans who
are not followers? Who are the current role models exemplifying this viewpoint and how are
they able to interpret God‘s divine commands? And how are others to understand what God‘s
divine command is and where it comes from? It is these final questions added to what has
already been discussed, that shows that God‘s divine moral commands as a moral code are
unsubstantiated, but also this is due to the reasoning that God as a divine moral commander is in
doubt of even existing at all.
1.Plato, ―Euthyphro‖, Moral Philosophy, edited by George Sher, © 2001 Wadsworth Group.
2.Robert Merrihew Adams, ―A New Divine Command Theory‖, Moral Philosophy, edited by George Sher, © 2001
Wadsworth Group.

32
The
Traditional
Christian
God

33
THE TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN GOD
The traditional Christian God is the one created by Emperor Constantine at the Council of
Nicea in 325 CE (AD). What became the Nicean Creed is as follows:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things
visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten
of the Father, that is, from the substance of the Father, God of God,
light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one
substance [homoousios] with the Father, through whom all things
were made, both in heaven and on earth, who for us humans and
for our salvation descended and became incarnate, becoming
human, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the
heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead.
And in the Holy Spirit.
But those who say that there was when He was not, and that
before being begotten He was not, or that He came from that which
is not, or that the Son of God is of a different substance
[hypostasis] or essence [ousia], or that He is created, or mutable,
these the catholic church anathematizes.
(Gonzalez, 1984, p. 165)
Jesus being ‗homoousios‘ with the Father is what rendered the Godhead as a trinity rather than
a triad. It also means that the substance that they are made of is supernatural and in an eternal
state that can make the natural, either visible or invisible, as well as humans, all of which were
created out of nothing, according to their translation of Genesis 1:1 into Greek. Eternal was
defined as existing outside of time. (Craig & Sinnott-Armstrong, 2004, p. 31) This allows God
to be omniscient, knowing the beginning and the end and be able to step into mortality at any
point in time, especially in order to create things out of nothing. And the Creed also designates
one characteristic of God being omnipotent (Almighty). All of this from one word that was
added by the non-Christian man, Constantine. (Gonzalez, 1984, p. 166) Now one just needs to
include God as being all-benevolent/loving and the essential characteristics of the new traditional
Christian God is developed.
Supernatural Characteristics of traditional Christian God:
All knowing (omniscient)
All powerful (omnipotent)
All good (omni-benevolent)
Beyond human comprehension (mysterious, unknowable)
Eternal (omnipresent; outside of time)
Initial Problems with a Supernatural Deity

34
Logical Arguments from Knowledge:
Hypothetical Syllogism
If God is Supernatural, then God is not comprehended by the natural
If God is not comprehended by the natural then man cannot comprehend God
Therefore if God is Supernatural, then man cannot comprehend God
Exportation
If God is Supernatural, then if God is not comprehended by the natural, then man cannot
comprehend God
Therefore if God is Supernatural and if God is not comprehended by the natural, then
man cannot comprehend God
A Supernatural being is an automatic contradiction in logic. Infinite knowledge, power,
goodness, and presence, which cannot be comprehended by humans cannot therefore be created
or stated as fact as characteristics of a God by humans. For a human to state that God is
unknowable is to state that humans can know that God is unknowable; and in so doing any
further argument dies with no truth ascertained for either party. The Nicean Creed is obviously
false due to its fallaciousness in logic.
Logical Argument from Evil:
Expanded and Abbreviated Hypothetical Syllogism
God is all knowing, all powerful, and all good
If God is all knowing, then God knows evil exists
If God is all powerful, then God can eliminate evil
If God is all good, then God wants to eliminate evil
Evil exists
Therefore God is not all knowing, all powerful, and all good
Christian Apology #1:
God gave humans their Free Will – a mental will to choose to be and do good or evil
Counter-Argument #1:
God is all good and all powerful
If God is all good, then God has granted man Free Will
If God has granted man Free Will, then God is not all powerful over man
Therefore if God is not all powerful over man, then God is not all powerful
God compensates humans after death

35
God is all good and all powerful
If God is all powerful, then God can eliminate evil
If God is all good, then God wants to eliminate evil
If God is all good, then God will compensate man after death
If God will compensate humans after death, then God does not eliminate evil
Therefore God is not all good and not all powerful
Divine Command Moral Theory:
God is moral (all good), so whatever God commands is moral (good)
Problems:
1. Fallacy of Begging the Question – What God commands cannot be moral just because God is
moral
2. Fallacy of Equivocation – God‘s infinite morality is not the same as humans‘ finite morality
3. Fallacy of Straw man – Humans cannot give an infinite being finite human characteristics
(Anthropomorphism)
4. Contradiction – Either God is moral or His commands are moral (see #1)
5. If God‘s commands are moral, then one does not need God to seek morality
6. Fallacy of Ad Vericordium – Humans are the wrong authority to comprehend and explain the
character of a supernatural God
7. The same problematic arguments work in relation to immorality or evil
The Bible is God‘s word as the authority to appeal to, to know and comprehend God‘s infinite
characteristics.
Begs the Question –
The Bible is true because it is God‘s word
The Bible is God‘s word because the Bible is true.
Intelligent Design Theory of the Universe:
If anything is designed, then it has a designer
The universe is designed
Therefore the universe has a designer
Therefore the traditional Christian God exists as the designer

36
Problems:
6. Fallacy by Analogy –
A has X, Y, and Z
B has X and Y
Therefore A is B
7. Fallacy of False Dichotomy –
Other theories to try and explain the creation of the universe:
- Theory of Evolution through natural selection – Charles Darwin
- Theory of Generation or Vegetation – David Hume
- Other religions‘ viewpoints with their own Creation Stories/Myths
8. Fallacy of Begging the Question –
The traditional Christian God as a designer cannot be used to explain the universe as designed
Christian Apology:
The Big Bang Theory requires an initial causation, which initial cause is a designer existing
outside of time, which is God.
Counter-Argument:
The Big Bang Theory was developed by the Catholic Priest, Georges Lemaitre, (Craig &
Sinnott-Armstrong, 2004, p. 43) in 1927, two years after the Scopes Trial denied the Biblical
account of the Creation out of nothing (Creationism) from being taught in public schools in the
United States, and two years before Edwin Powell Hubble confirmed it by measuring red shifts
in the spectra of extragalactic nebulae, then taking credit for the theory. In 1951 Pope Pius XII
fallaciously declared the Big Bang theory as evidence for God‘s existence. (Ibid.)
Other Problems:
1. Contradiction – God is eternal (timeless) and therefore cannot enter into time to be an initial
causation (singularity).
2. False Dichotomy – The Big Bang Theory is not the only theory for the creation of the
universe. There are also what are called, ―open, closed, balanced, oscillating, inflationary, and
steady state universe‖ theories.
3. Far Fetched Hypothesis – The Big Bang Theory is not proof or even evidence of Creation
out of nothing (Creationism), nor of God as the initial causation (singularity).

37
True Character of the Traditional Christian God:
- As all powerful, God cannot give Free Will to man.
- As a Divine Commander, God is the source of morality forcing all men to obey ‗Him‘
- As all powerful, mans‘ Free Will is replaced with fear of punishment
- As all knowing, God predestines humans to their fate
- As all powerful, criminal and evil acts and behavior are in accordance with God‘s predestined will.
- As all good, evil is not really evil, but all apart of God‘s predestined will
- As a Divine Commander God is above and beyond the law, not responsible for acts of commission or
of omission, nor capable of being an example to be followed.
- As eternal (outside of time), God has no dealings or causations upon men who are within time. He is,
in a sense, in His own little world.
- As incomprehensible, God‘s mysterious ways are as mysterious as ‗His‘ existence. He is neither
human, nor an exalted/perfected human, nor male, nor female, but a supernatural essence – a mater,
which is not matter, which can never be known, discovered, or comprehended by humans to test His
existence for falsifiability. He is a non-anthropomorphic contradiction.
In LDS philosophy, the traditional Christian God is the epitome of Satanic religion.

39
David Hume
Within the composition of the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is
not just a new religious view, but that of a new philosophical viewpoint. Its origins have an
interesting connection to other significant historical events and people. In 1779 the book,
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, was published in England. It was the work of a Scottish
philosopher named, David Hume. He achieved great influence in both England and Scotland,
where more than 80% of the first converts to The LDS Church came from before 1850, within
only 75 years after the publication of his book. The following is a summation from his book of
major points (spoken by his three main characters) that have a connection or relation to LDS
philosophy.
Nature of God:
―The question is not concerning the BEING but the NATURE of GOD.‖(Demea, p. 51)
“…three things are necessary in order than any rational and intelligent being may exercise
faith in God unto life and salvation. First, the idea that he actually exists. Secondly, a correct
idea of his character, perfections, and attributes…” (Lectures, p. 33)
The Being of God:
―One ought not so much...to call God a spirit, in order to express positively what he is, as in
order to signify that he is not matter. He is a being infinitely perfect...we ought not to imagine,
even supposing him corporeal, that he is clothed with a human body, as the Anthropomorphites
asserted, under colour that that figure was the most perfect of any; so neither ought we to
imagine, that the spirit of God has human ideas or bears any resemblance to our spirit...he
comprehends the perfections of matter without being material...he comprehends also the
perfections of created spirits, without being spirit,...we ought never to imagine, that we
comprehend the attributes of this divine being, or to suppose, that his perfections have any
analogy or likeness to the perfections of a human creature.‖ (Demea, p. 52)
Compare with Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 and Doctrine and Covenants 131:7 – 8
Laws of Nature:
―Nothing exists without a cause; and the original cause of this universe (whatever it be) we
call God.‖ (Demea, p. 52)
―this supposes,..., that matter can acquire motion, without any voluntary agent or first mover.‖

40
(Demea, p. 93)
―Motion, in many instances, from gravity, from elasticity, from electricity, begins in matter,
without any known voluntary agent;...‖ (Philo, p. 93)
―...the equality of action and reaction seems to be an universal law of nature:...‖ (Philo, p. 96)
―...in tracing an eternal succession of objects, it seems absurd to inquire for a general cause or
first author. How can any thing that exists from eternity, have a cause; since that relation implies
a priority in time and a beginning of existence?‖ (Cleanthes, ppgs. 100-101)
Compare with Doctrine and Covenants 93:29 – 30; 131:7 – 8; 93:33; 88:6 – 13
Cause and Effect:
―...all inferences,..., concerning fact are founded on experience, and that all experimental
reasonings are founded on the supposition, that similar causes prove similar effects, and similar
effects similar causes;...Every alteration of circumstances occasions a doubt concerning the
event; and it requires new experiments to prove certainly, that the new circumstances are of no
moment or importance.‖ (Philo, p. 57)
Compare with Doctrine and Covenants 130:20 – 21; 84:44 – 46; Alma 32:28, 42-43
Man Creating God:
―...those who maintain the perfect simplicity of the supreme being, to the extent in which you
have explained it, are...atheists, without knowing it.‖ (Cleanthes, p. 70)
Compare with Doctrine and Covenants 1:16
Theory of Vegetation:
―If the universe bears a greater likeness to animal bodies and to vegetables, than to the works
of human art, it is more probable, that its cause resembles the cause of the former than that of the
latter, and its origin ought rather to be ascribed to generation or vegetation than to reason or
design...A comet, for instance, is the seed of a world; and after it has been fully ripened, by
passing from sun to sun, and star to star, is is at last tossed in to the unformed elements, which
everywhere surround this universe, and immediately sprouts up into a new system.‖ (Philo, ppgs.
86-7)
Compare with Moses 1:38; Moses 6:63; Alma 30:44

41
Reality of God:
―...no question of fact can be proved otherwise than by experience, the existence of a deity
admits not of proof from any other medium.‖ (Philo, p. 86)
Compare with Joseph Smith-History 1:25; Ether 3:19 – 20; 3 Nephi 11:8, 13 – 15
Vegetation Theory:
―To say that all this order in animals and vegetables proceeds ultimately from design is
begging the question;‖ (Philo, p. 89)
Compare with Abraham 4:12
Origin of Ideas:
―In all instances which we have ever seen, ideas are copied from real objects, and are ectypal,
not archetypal,...‖ (Philo, p. 96)
Compare with Joseph Smith-History 1:11-12
Feelings:
―...each man feels, in a manner, the truth of religion within his own breast;...rather than from
any reasoning,...‖ (Demea, p. 103)
―And for that purpose a talent of eloquence and strong imagery is more requisite than that of
reasoning and argument. For is it not necessary to prove, what everyone feels within himself? It
is only necessary to make us feel it,...‖ (Philo, p. 103)
Compare with Alma 32:28
Problem of Evil:
―Epicurus‘s old questions are yet unanswered. Is he (God) willing to prevent evil, but not
able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able
and willing? Whence then is evil?‖ (Philo, ppgs. 108-109)
Compare with Doctrine and Covenants 19:16-17; 130:20 – 21; 124:48; 88:13; Alma 3:19

42
Proof:
―You must prove these pure, unmixed, and uncontrollable attributes from the present mixed
and confused phenomena, and from these alone.‖ (Philo, p. 112)
Compare with 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1; Alma 32:28
Tolerance of Religions:
―The total infirmity of human reason, the absolute incomprehensibility of the divine nature,
the great and universal misery and still greater wickedness of man; these are strange topics surely
to be so fondly cherished by orthodox divines and doctors. In ages of stupidity and ignorance,
indeed, these principles may safely be espoused; and perhaps, no views of things are more proper
to promote superstition, than such as encourage the blind amazement, the diffidence, and
melancholy of mankind.‖ (Cleanthes, p. 123)
―If he (magistrate) admits only one religion among his subjects, he must sacrifice, to an
uncertain prospect of 42ranquility, every consideration of public liberty, science, reason,
industry, and even his own independence. If he gives indulgence to several sects, which is the
wiser maxim, he must preserve a very philosophical indifference to all of them, and carefully
restrain the pretensions of the prevailing sect; otherwise he can expect nothing but endless
disputes, quarrels, factions, persecutions, and civil commotions.‖ (Philo, p. 134)
It should be noted with this last statement that 12 years later in 1791, the United States added
the 1
st
Amendment from the Bill of Rights into the Constitution.
Compare with Doctrine and Covenants 123:7 – 13; JS-History 1:19

44
EPISTEMOLOGY and ETHICS
Ethics in LDS philosophy is directly tied to the process of LDS epistemology. Morality or
spirituality is the gaining of knowledge, or the fulfillment of true information.
What is the Spirit?
A. Intelligence: Doctrine and Covenants 93
B. Glory: Doctrine and Covenants 93
C. Truth: Doctrine and Covenants 93
D. Still small voice: 1 Nephi 17; 3Nephi 11; Doctrine and Covenants 85:6
E. The Word: Alma 32; Doctrine and Covenants 93
F. Light of Christ: Doctrine and Covenants 88
G. Power: 2 Nephi 32; Moroni 10; Alma 26; Doctrine and Covenants 88
H. Omniscience: Alma 26:35; Doctrine and Covenants 93:28
I. Omnipresence: Doctrine and Covenants 88:12, 13, 41
J. The Law: Doctrine and Covenants 88:13
K. Revelation/Inspiration: Alma 32; Doctrine and Covenants 88:11
L. Physical Matter: Doctrine and Covenants 131:7
M. Communication medium for Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: 3 Nephi 11; 10; Moroni
10

45
FAITH – is simply belief in the Spirit.
- Belief needs to be in the truth, also called ―word of God‖ (Alma 32:28)
- Word of God = spirit (D&C 84:44-47)
REPENTANCE – is to change one‘s false faith into a belief in the Spirit.
The ‗re‘ means, ―2nd
time, again‖. ‗penitence‘ means, ―punishment, physical pain, or penalty‖.
Thus repentance means, ―a second physical pain‖.
- The Greek word used in the Greek text of the New Testament is metanoeo; ‗meta‘ meaning,
―to change‖, and ‗noeo‘ meaning, ―mind/thoughts/beliefs. Thus metanoeo means, ―to change
one‘s own mind/thoughts/beliefs‖.
- The Hebrew word is sub meaning ―to turn one‘s way or beliefs‖
- changing one‘s false beliefs requires penitence (Alma 32:6-8); which is humility, or
lowliness of heart.
WORKS – fulfillment of the acts of faith in the Spirit.
- renders faith dormant. (Alma 32:34, 40-42)
- turns faith into knowledge/witness. (Ether 3:19)
- is the manner by which to judge righteously. (Moroni 7:5)
- demonstrates that one has corrected a false belief into a true belief. (Alma 13:13)
LOVE – belief in the Spirit to the works of its fulfillment must be done with love.

46
Thus in LDS epistemology and ethics, one is to seek the truth by embracing beliefs that are
able to be fulfilled and discarding beliefs that cannot. The moral or spiritual person is the one
who has fulfilled many truths being filled with love. This is how LDS ethics can identify not just
immoral persons, but those who appear to be moral or spiritual, yet are following their own will
or a false belief in God.
Following our own will, or our own interpretation of God is called idolatry. This
understanding in LDS theology originates from a story in the Book of Mormon at the very start
of book of ‗Alma‗ in Chapter 2. After King Mosiah had established a judicial government in
place of a monarchy, a man named, Amlici, rose up to oppose this judicial system and re-
establish an executive system with him as monarch. After losing the referendum, which we
would call an election, Amlici then waged war against these people called, Nephites, also
enlisting the military help of the people called, Lamanites, a long standing enemy of the
Nephites. (see Alma 4:2 – 4)
Though the Nephites won the war with the help of the Lord‘s revelations, in Alma 4:3, we are
told that they wrongly believed that their loss of property and life was due to their wickedness,
and not as a consequence of Amlici‗s. Therefore after the war they rushed to appear righteous by
outward performances, which they called ―their duty―. These actions based upon a false belief in
God is what is called superstition.
So if they believe that poverty = wickedness, then it follows that they would believe that
prosperity = righteousness. Such a concept was on the minds of these Nephites, of the city of
Zarahemla, years earlier, under King Benjamin, who exposed that there were those who would
not give of their substance to the poor, believing that such a ―man has brought upon himself his
misery‖, therefore ―his punishments are just‖ (Mosiah 4:17). Thus in verses 6-12 of Alma 4,
when some started to prosper again they immediately persecuted the poor for their poverty,
which you will notice in verse 8 is called, ―according to their own will and pleasure―, rather than
following after God‗s will which starts in verse 13. It was from among these same people that
the people called, the Zoromites, broke off and leads the reader to the full explanation of what
true faith is in chapter 32 of Alma. The assisting of the poor to become equal with all citizens is
the key in distinguishing the moral/spiritual person from the idolater, or immoral person.
Another aspect of idolatry is the belief that spirituality is obtained by having a feeling from
exposure to objects or the performance of outward actions, rather than by fulfilling faith in God‗s
revelations and according to Alma 12:9-11 receiving a greater portion of the word. In Jeremiah
44:17-18 the people were telling Jeremiah that they will not hearken unto him, because when
they worshipped the queen of heaven they were prosperous, but when they had stopped they
suffered the loss of their property, food, and lives. They obviously felt better and more spiritual
having faith in the worship of idols.
In Jeremiah 10:5 Jeremiah is trying to explain that idols or any object has no spiritual power.
Though this is incorrectly translated it is still correct LDS doctrine. Nevertheless the verb ―to
do‖ in the passage does not exist in the Hebrew text, meaning that it should read, ―for they
(idols) are not evil, neither also are they good‖. But the translator being conflicted over
commandment #2 of the 11 Commandments that ―thou shalt not make unto thee any graven
image―, wrongly believed that an idol itself is an evil.
In 1 Thessalonians 5:22 the word ‗appearance‘ is mistranslated. The more correct meaning is
―a state or condition of‖; thus the scripture should read, ―Abstain from all states or conditions of
evil‖. This false translation is also countered in LDS doctrine by 2 Nephi 21:3 in which it is told
not to judge by the sight of our eyes. And in John 7:24 is the correct translation of ‗appearance‘

47
and gives the commandment not to judge by the appearance. Evil therefore cannot appear, but is
a state or condition of the heart.
And then in Psalm 115:4-8 we are told that though idols are made to appear real, we should
not put our trust in them for spirituality or the taking away thereof. We therefore, for example,
do not automatically get the Spirit by entering a sacred place, nor does the Spirit leave us if we
enter an unholy place. We instead through our agency either hearken to the Spirit whenever and
wherever, or hearken to a false belief of another or of our own will. For as the Lord is quoted as
saying in 2 Ne. 28:32, ―For notwithstanding I shall lengthen out mine arm unto them from day to
day, they will deny me; nevertheless, I will be merciful unto them… if they will repent, (i.e.
correct their false beliefs) and come unto me.‖
The practice of idolatry anciently still follows the same exact pattern today. People knew that
the object itself was not a God, but it was believed that by giving offerings of sacrificed food and
drink in connection with prayers (spells) they could petition the deity for blessings or cursings to
themselves or others. Thus magic spells or prayers to bless or to curse (hex), even accompanied
by any type of offering, are superstitious acts due to a false belief in God. Whereas in LDS
theology prayer is the means of receiving information from the Spirit, called revelation, or
inspiration, rather than telling a false God what we want Him to do for us or for others through
our own will and desires.

48
Part 2
Epistemological
Origins of Mormonism

49
Mormonism is one of the fastest growing American religions, if not the fastest. And now after
170 years it has grown to over 11 million members worldwide. It originated out of the birth of
the United States and can be seen as a product of this new formation. It features doctrines
unique from other traditional, even protestant, religions of the day. What does the new
epistemological philosophy of Mormonism suggest as a source of its origin?
To search for the answer, a look back at the traditional religion's origin and doctrinal features
is necessary. The origin of the traditional Christian religion begins with Emperor Constantine.
Around 300 CE the Roman battle against the Christians was proving to be most difficult. So in a
strategic maneuver, Constantine, chose to create a truce and accept the Christian faith. Small
pockets of resistance made it difficult to fully kill off Christianity, despite having a dominant
Roman military. But now by appearing to accept the religion, Constantine, was in a position to
control it.
Gathering together the remaining Christian leaders from all of the various districts,
Constantine, sought to not only control Christianity, but also unify it by establishing a core
doctrine of faith. After the death of the Apostolic Christian leadership, the Christian Church was
maintained by Bishops who had been in charge of a region. Without central leadership,
Christianity was splintered into several factions espousing a divergent and contrary doctrinal
viewpoint. Now that there was no further war to unify them, these doctrinal differences became
a more urgent concern.
At what is known as the Council of Nicea, the Bishops debated over what the true nature and
character of God is. Several Groups had developed ideas that God was either a) an all mortal
being, resurrected to become God; b) ½ God, ½ mortal being just like the Roman and Greek
mythological characters of equal nature (i.e. Hercules); c) a God within a mortal shell of a body;

50
d) a Son of the distinct personage of The Father, thus a polytheist style belief with variations on
the above mentioned beliefs a through c; and e) a simple man just like the rest of us. It was
important to make an absolute decision as to which was to be the official nature and character of
God, not just for the defining of the religion, but to exclude disliked Christian groups that would
oppose the Bishops' power.
In the Nicean Creed Constantine is credited with the final decision for the nature and character
of God. (Gonzalez, 1984, ppgs. 165-6) God was chosen to become "homoousios", translated as
"of the same substance", though this substance is not natural, but supernatural. And a comment
denouncing all other organizations that believe contrary to this description was added at the end
of the Creed. It is this Creed that continues to be accepted by the majority of Christianity, even
many of those broken off from the Catholic Church.
The Nicean Creed was enhanced in the explanation of this new homoousios God by Thomas
Aquinas, made a Saint as a result of his work. He incorporated Platonic philosophy with the new
Christian theology. (Ibid., p. 319) From this Aquinas developed the idea that God was eternal in
the sense of being outside of time, not subject to it; (Ibid.) and, as a supernatural being, contains
the supernatural characteristics of omniscience, omnipresence, and omni-benevolence.
This breaking away from the Catholic Church is actually a process rather than an event. Islam
had weakened Christianity long before Christians started speaking out against a need for change
in Christian doctrine that occurred as early as the 14th century with John Wycliffe, as one
example. It is in this rebirth of mindset that gave rise to the Renaissance. During this time many
were looking back to classical literature as part of a scholastic movement in this Renaissance
period. Scholasticism involved philosophy challenging Christian theology. (Ibid., p. 362)
Reason was challenging religious doctrine and particularly the nature and character of the

51
Constantinian God.
Shortly after the start of the Renaissance was the discovery of the Americas. Many of the
wealthy were able to leave the old world to establish themselves in the new world. This also
enabled them to practice their restored beliefs about religion. America then became a special
land where one could freely practice their new religious ideals. (Gonzalez, 1985, p. 9) And as
more people reformed their religious beliefs in the old world the more of their need to separate
from the traditional Christianity.
One of the most influential philosophers of the 18th century that contributed to the further
question of mainstream Catholic Christianity and its conception of God, was David Hume. In
his book, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume uses the character, Philo, to ask the
question: "Is he (God) willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent? Is he able, but
not willing? Then is he malevolvent? Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"
(Hume, 1779, ppgs. 108-9) Hume evidently appears to be responding to the Constintinian God
that was further developed by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Hume allows for the anthropomorphic
character of God, despite explaining that God has been created as having perfect and infinite
characteristics, which cannot be analogous to humans, only to show from the above statement,
that such a character is inconsistent with reason. However he does suggests that an
anthropomorphic nature of the traditional Christian God will not suffice, such as that of having a
human body, being in a state of spirit, which is not a substance of physical matter. (Ibid., p. 52)
David Hume's work obviously had such a powerful impact on the minds of the people in his
day, since his ideas seem to have made it into the very United States Constitution as an
Amendment. The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights utilizes Hume's explanation for the
treatment of the various religions. The First Amendment, ratified on December 15, 1791, just 12

52
years after Hume's book was published, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." This appears to shadow
Hume's comments: "If he (the magistrate) admits only one religion among his subjects, he must
sacrifice, to an uncertain prospect of tranquillity, every consideration of public liberty, science,
reason, industry, and even his own independence. If he gives indulgence to several sects, which
is the wiser maxim, he must preserve a very philosophical indifference to all of them, and
carefully restrain the pretensions of the prevailing sect; otherwise he can expect nothing but
endless disputes, quarrels, factions, persecutions, and civil commotions." (Hume, 1779, p. 134)
Under these conditions and historical background came Joseph Smith and the emergence of a
brand new American religion. On April 6, 1830 Joseph Smith "organized and established
agreeable to the laws", the Church of Christ. (Smith, 1951, ppgs. 64-65) It was not until April
26, 1938 that the name of the Church was changed to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints." (Smith, 1948, p. 24) This was to be the final and official designation for the name of the
Church, doing away with other such titles as: "Church of Jesus Christ", "Church of God", and
the "Church of the Latter-Day Saints". The nickname of the "Mormon Church" is due to the
Book of Mormon, which Joseph Smith had published prior to the start of the organization and as
he calls it, it is the "keystone of our religion" (Introduction to the Book of Mormon).
The official historical background of the Book of Mormon is recorded as starting when Joseph
was a boy of 14 years old. Joseph wrote this journal account in 1838, in his 33rd year, when the
official title of the name of the Church was given. The account starts by discussing a clash of
doctrinal views between the European breakoffs from the Catholic Church that had expanded to
the new world of America. Each of these different religions were interpreting the same passage
of scripture in a different way. Yet Joseph then comes up with a unique interpretation of James

53
1:5. It is clear that Joseph is establishing that the Bible is incorrectly understood, interpreted,
and translated. The Book of Mormon then became a way to present what corrections needed to
be made in the Bible.
Not only does the Book of Mormon purport to be an account of religiously persecuted people
who left the old world and sailed to the new world; which patterns the colonization of America
in Joseph's day; but there are also illustrations of the new interpretation of Biblical doctrine.
Two clear cut examples are in Moroni chapter 7, a sub-book within the Book of Mormon.
Starting in verse 5 is a rewording of a passage from the New Testament's 'Sermon on the Mount':
"By their fruits ye shall know them.", which is also found in 3 Nephi 14:20. 'Fruits' is changed
to 'works'. This is confirmed in the Doctrine and Covenants, a book of collected and canonized
writings of mostly Joseph Smith; in section 18, verse 38. This also adds 'desires' with 'works'
summarizing Moroni's further exposition.
The second illustration is found in Moroni 7:47. This part parallels with 1 Corinthians chapter
13, except for this additional defining verse. Charity is defined as the "pure love of Christ". In
the Greek text from which Corinthians derived, the word for charity is actually agaph (NIV
Interlinear) supposed to be translated as love, not gift - the translation for charity, (Robinson,
1994, p. 36) if it were to have been made.
But by far the most dramatic of examples are those passages discussing God. It is here were
we see Hume's influence. In Ether 3:16, for example, is an account of a man called "the brother
of Jared" who sees the spirit body of God and is told that not only is mankind created after His
image and likeness (a new interpretation of Genesis 1:26-7 by the way); but that God himself
will come to earth as us, to likewise, possess a body of flesh. And in 3 Nephi 11:14-5 is an
account of Jesus Christ personally appearing to the people of the book in the American continent

54
after His resurrection. This is in direct blasphemy and opposition to the decision of the Nicean
Creed. Yet the physical nature of God now conforms to the necessary features that Hume
suggests is needed for a natural religion in order to try and understand God.
That Joseph Smith was aware of the various creeds of Christianity is revealed in Doctrine and
Covenants section 123, verse 7, composed in 1839. And later in 1843 Joseph revisited the
physical and separate nature of God the Father and His Son in Doctrine and Covenants 130:22-
3, pointing out that the Holy Spirit is only a "personage of Spirit". Joseph Smith then in the
following month of May declared in section 131 that spirit is a "finer and purer matter" than that
which makes up the physical body. This again conforms to Hume's criticism of the traditional
Christian God which is supernatural and therefore beyond natural law. The LDS God being of a
physical nature, therefore conforms to natural law.
It is this new concept of God that makes the canonized account of Joseph's own encounter
with God so vital for understanding. The First Vision, as it is called, from the historic journal
recorded in 1838, is significant from earlier accounts, due to the features set up before the actual
event occurrs. The conditions Joseph was in generally, serves as a template for the general
reader to apply to their own life. Starting with the desire for an answer to what is unknown or
what is conflicting knowledge among two or more different propositions, the seeker of truth,
through study, will eventually be inspired with what the answer would be. So that upon
experimentation to fulfill the illumination, the resulting experience will be discovered in the due
course of time and despite any obstacles needed to be overcome. This doctrinal set up makes
this version in all probability the desired choice over the others, though they discuss other factual
occurrences during this singular event. Also of note with this version is the account of the Lord
expressing His displeasure of the established "creeds" of the Catholic Church as well as

55
providing an alternate rendering of the Biblical passage in Isaiah 29:13. (Smith, 1951, p. 6)
Another indication of Hume's influence upon the this new American Church and its members
is in what is called, Lectures on Faith. Developed by Joseph Smith in the winter of 1834-5 for
what was called the "school of the prophets", was 7 lectures about the nature and character of
God. In the first lecture Joseph Smith is responding to Hume's notion that it is not "within the
reach of human capacity to explain ultimate causes, or show the last connections of any objects.
It is sufficient if the steps, so far as we go, are supported by experience and observation." (Hume,
1779, p. 89) Joseph actually counters Hume here by stating that "faith is the moving cause of all
action...not only the principle of action, but of power also, in all intelligent beings..." (Smith,
1834-5, p. 8)
For Joseph Smith faith is not to be considered a dogma. He points out that the Biblical
character, Adam, was the first source from which faith was derived. "Adam, thus being made
acquainted with God, communicated the knowledge which he had unto his posterity; and it was
through this means that the thought was first suggested to their minds that there was a God,
which laid the foundation for the exercise of their faith, through which they could obtain a
knowledge of his character and also of his glory." (Ibid., p. 18) Faith is an assurance of a
proposition of fact, either true or false, that when acted on will produce a knowledge of whether
the fact is true or not.
Joseph Smith then goes on to address the attributes of the traditional Christian God. He
proposes different attributes other than that of being omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.
Omnipresence is the Christian understanding of God's eternal nature, that He is outside of time,
or is not subject to time. The third attribute that Hume applies to God of being omni-benevolent
is not brought up at first. Nevertheless Joseph, in the third lecture, emphasizes the necessity of

56
having a "correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes." (Ibid., p. 33) It is here that
Joseph brings out the characteristic that God is love. But as to the attributes of God, Joseph
assigns six counters to the traditional Christian God. The six are: Knowledge, Faith, Justice,
Judgment, Mercy, and Truth. (Ibid., ppgs. 41-42)
With Joseph having designated God as a more perfect human, attaching human characteristics
and attributes no longer logically begs the question, or creates a logical fallacy of a straw man
through anthropomorphism. God becomes real and falsifiable in explaining the existence of evil
coexisting with God. Hume's requirements are therefore answered with an alternative
conception of God.
It would be no wonder that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would attract the
interest of many living in America who were affluent and cultured enough to have known of
Hume's ideas mixed with the establishment of the United States as a break away from European
Catholicism. And it is no wonder that the English isles became a successful region for LDS
conversion, having been the central area of Hume's work. By 1850, out of a total membership of
51,839, (Church Almanac, 1997-8, p. 529) 42,316 were converts from England. (Ibid., p. 398)
And in Scotland, the homeland of David Hume, there were 3,257 converts by 1850. (Ibid., p.
401) This makes over 45,573 out of 51,839, approximately 88%, coverts from the United
Kingdom alone in just 20 years.
Armand L. Mauss' supposes that the rise of Anglo-Saxon ideology coupled with British
Israelism, claiming a lineage from Ephriam of the ancient House of Israel, is why the Church did
so well. He uses B. H. Roberts' confirming statement to support his reasoning that Northern
Europe had a greater number of LDS converts due to the idea that they were from the House of
Ephriam. (Mauss, 2003, p. 27) This alone does not, however, work completely without David

57
Hume's influence. For Joseph Smith does not emphasize a lineage from the House of Ephriam
alone, but does include other features of the nature and character of God, and of faith as an initial
causation.
With the intense disillusionment of the traditional Catholic Church and its role in government
affairs, the Americas became a promised land of freedom. This escape allowed for a new
religious experiment to go hand in hand with the new governmental experiment in the United
States. In particular David Hume's philosophies about God and religion played a central role in
shaping the minds for the new American government and religion. Joseph Smith appears to have
established the right religious movement, at the right era in time, converting membership from
the right geographical areas.

59
Mormon Theology
Listing of Deities:
1. Father in Heaven, named Father Ahman in Egyptian; The Great Elohim in Jewish and
Christian mysticism; Father Yah in Paleo-Hebrew (Goodsell, An Introduction to Paleo-
Hebrew Alphabet and Grammar A New Theory); and Jehovah in Judaism.
2. Mother in Heaven, not named
3. Notable Children:
A. Jesus Christ, named Son Ahman in Egyptian (see also Isaiah‘s Emmanuel as The God
Ahman from Goodsell, ibid.); Jehovah in Judaism; and Son Yah in Paleo-Hebrew
(Goodsell, ibid.)
B. Lucifer, who is Satan, the Devil, named for the morning star of Venus.
C. Michael, the archangel, which means ―Who is like God‖; who becomes Adam. Also
named Atum in the Paleo-Hebrew re-translation of the Creation Story (Goodsell,
ibid.)
D. Great and Noble Spirits, those who are involved in special missions/assignments on
earth as mortals. Latter-Day members born in the Covenant are examples. (Abraham
3:22 and Benson, To the Youth of the Noble Birthright)
Notable Myths:
1. Mankind is not creations of Heavenly Father, but actual Spirit personage children, male
and female, of Heavenly Parents. Son Ahman is the First Born Spirit Personage and
therefore has the birthright and blessing to be the Messiah for the Atonement of mankind.
Gods can cease to be Gods through disobedience and their mission assignment would
then be given to another sibling. Earth life is a training and proving ground for Father
Ahman‘s children to become God‘s like Him; an exalted immortal, who once inhabited a
mortal body. A lesser being cannot praise Heavenly Father like a higher being can. And
children of Heavenly Father are the highest level of being to praise Him. Also a master‘s
first duty is to train his replacement. Such is the case with Heavenly Father who trains
his children to become like him.
2. There was a War in the pre-mortal state between Heavenly Father‘s children. Heavenly
Father‘s Plan presented in the Council in Heaven was that He would grant his children
their agency to choose to become Gods like Him. As a result not every child would
choose to become a God. For example some would rather be ministering servants to
God. Lucifer, however, opposed this Plan and offered an alternative plan in which every
single one of Heavenly Father‘s children would become a God like Him. Agency would
be taken away in order to accomplish this type of lowering the bar to become exalted.
Those who didn‘t want to become Gods would be forced to become such. For this
rebellion Lucifer was cast down from Heaven to the Spirit Prison of Earth where he has
been able to be a god to those who allow him to possess them, but is forever denied a
body of his own.

60
3. Son Ahman was chosen as the Messiah God to atone for mankind. The atonement
involves salvation from Physical Death and Spiritual Death. Physical Death was
overcome by His ability to resurrect himself as the sacrificial offering. This required his
mortal body to be ½ mortal and ½ immortal. He is the Only Begotten of the Father in
Heaven with an Earthly Mother to enable Him to resurrect Himself. Death, burial, and
resurrection are part of the process of becoming a God. Those wishing to become like
Heavenly Father perform rituals in Temples, such as baptism, that are symbolic of death,
burial, and resurrection. The procreative process is also a pattern of the process of
becoming a God. Spiritual Death is being separated from Heavenly Father both
physically and in communication by prayer. Through prayer communication is
established and through the rituals of the Temple one qualifies for Godhood. Jesus‘
sacrificial suffering in the Garden atoned for all those who choose to become like their
Heavenly Father. The atonement is only effective on those of Heavenly Father‘s
children. Heavenly Father‘s world also required its own Messiah God, for example.

62
Much dispute about and even within the LDS Church is over misunderstandings of LDS
scripture involving logical illiteracy. The following lists some scriptural examples that are
misunderstood due to the neglect or ignorance of what constitutes a logical argument. Such
examples can likewise be applied to other religions and their scriptures, even the Bible, equally
used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
False Dilemma Fallacy:
I know thy aworks, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or
hot.
So then because thou art alukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will bspue thee
out of my mouth.
Revelation 3:15 - 16
¶ aNo man can bserve two cmasters: for either he will dhate the one, and love the
other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God
and emammon.
Matthew 6:24
False Doctrine: We either serve God or Satan
Correct Doctrine: Though there are either good or bad precepts to follow, there are
many good spirits and many bad spirits to follow allowing for more than just two
options. See also: Alma 3:26 and 1 John 4:1
Circular Reasoning Fallacy:
For behold, the aSpirit of Christ is given to every bman, that he may cknow good
from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which
inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power
and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.
But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do aevil, and believe not in Christ, and
deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of
the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to
do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject
themselves unto him.
Moroni 7:16 - 17
False Doctrine: If it has the name of God or speaks of God then it is true and good
Correct Doctrine: Precepts are statements of beliefs. That which is true and correct
(good) will be fulfilled after implimentation. See also Moroni 7:5

63
Ad Populum Fallacy:
AND now it came to pass after some years had passed away, there came a man
among the people of Nephi, whose name was aSherem.
And it came to pass that he began to preach among the people, and to declare
unto them that there should be ano Christ. And he preached many things which
were flattering unto the people; and this he did that he might boverthrow the
doctrine of Christ.
And he labored diligently that he might lead away the hearts of the people,
insomuch that he did lead away many hearts; and he knowing that I, Jacob, had
faith in Christ who should come, he sought much opportunity that he might come
unto me.
And he was alearned, that he had a perfect knowledge of the language of the
people; wherefore, he could use much bflattery, and much power of speech,
according to the cpower of the devil.
Jacob 7:1 - 4
Now it is not common that the avoice of the people desireth anything bcontrary
to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the cpeople to desire
that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law - to do
your business by the voice of the people.
And aif the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is
the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he
will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.
Mosiah 29:26 - 27
False Doctrine: If the majority of the members are doing it it must be followed
Correct Doctrine: Good and evil is not determined by popularity, but by listening to the
voice of the Spirit. See also D&C 93:39; 84:54-55
Tu Quo Que Fallacy:
¶ And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a
spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by asoothsaying:
The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, aThese men are the servants of
the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.
And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the
aspirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he
came out the same hour.
Acts 16:16 - 18
False Doctrine: The testimony of a sinner is valid and true

64
Correct Doctrine: The testimony of a sinner can only be of their sin, not of the truth.
Ad Vericordium Fallacy:
For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment
for a alaw unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you to
receive commandments and brevelations from my hand.
And this ye shall know assuredly - that there is anone other appointed unto you to
receive bcommandments and revelations until he be taken, if he cabide in me.
But verily, verily, I say unto you, that anone else shall be appointed unto this gift
except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power
except to appoint another in his stead.
And this shall be a law unto you, that ye areceive not the bteachings of any that
shall come before you as revelations or commandments;
And this I give unto you that you may not be adeceived, that you may know they
are not of me.
For verily I say unto you, that he that is aordained of me shall come in at the
bgate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those crevelations which
you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.
Doctrine and Covenants 43:2 - 7
False Doctrine: Receiving revelations about and for close friends and family outside
of the realms of stewardship is legitimate
Correct Doctrine: Revelation over others is only for those who have stewardship
Ad Hominem Fallacy:
Divorce is becoming so common, even rampant, that studies show in a few years
half of those now married will be divorced. It is happening, I regret to say, even
among some who are sealed in the house of the Lord. Marriage is a contract, it is
a compact, it is a union between a man and a woman under the plan of the
Almighty. It can be fragile. It requires nurture and very much effort. I regret to
acknowledge that some husbands are abusive, some are unkind, some are
thoughtless, some are evil. They indulge in pornography and bring about
situations which destroy them, destroy their families, and destroy the most sacred
of all relationships.
Gordon B. Hinkley; "Walking in the Light of the Lord"; Ensign November
1998
False Doctrine: Divorced people are evil and must be limited in responsibilities

65
Correct Doctrine: By their completed works you shall know them. See Moroni 7:5
Appeal to Misery or Pity Fallacy:
Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: aEat, drink, and be merry, for
tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us.
And there shall also be many which shall say: aEat, drink, and be bmerry;
nevertheless, fear God - he will cjustify in committing a little dsin; yea, elie a
little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a fpit for thy neighbor;
there is gno harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so
be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be
saved in the kingdom of God.
Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, afalse and vain
and bfoolish cdoctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep
to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.
2 Nephi 28:7 - 9
False Doctrine: Jesus atoned for us so we don't have to suffer
Correct Doctrine: Must listen to voice of Spirit and fulfill the works of the revealed
precept to have the atonement work for us. See also D&C 19:16-17 and 3 Ne. 14:21-3
Ad Populum plus Ad Vericordium Fallacies:
And my brother, Jacob, also has aseen him as I have seen him; wherefore, I will
send their words forth unto my children to prove unto them that my words are
true. Wherefore, by the words of bthree, God hath said, I will establish my word.
Nevertheless, God sendeth more cwitnesses, and he proveth all his words.
2 Nephi 11:3
False Doctrine: As long as three important people say so it must be true
Correct Doctrine: All truth claimed by witnesses must be reproducible by others in
order to be true
Fallacy of the Hypothetical:
For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment
for a a
law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you to
receive commandments and b
revelations from my hand.

66
And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is a
none other appointed unto you
to receive b
commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he c
abide in me.
But verily, verily, I say unto you, that a
none else shall be appointed unto this gift
except it be through him; for if it be taken from him he shall not have power
except to appoint another in his stead.
And this shall be a law unto you, that ye a
receive not the b
teachings of any that
shall come before you as revelations or commandments;
And this I give unto you that you may not be a
deceived, that you may know they
are not of me.
For verily I say unto you, that he that is a
ordained of me shall come in at the
b
gate and be ordained as I have told you before, to teach those c
revelations which
you have received and shall receive through him whom I have appointed.
Doctrine and Covenants 43:2 - 7
False Doctrine: "If President Hinckley (or God) were here, then He would say that that
is right/wrong."
Correct Doctrine: One needs to refer to a primary source, not a hypothetical
speculation
Fallacy of False Dichotomy:
But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God?
Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of a
all these thy
brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea,
and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the b
earth, and c
all things that are
upon the face of it, yea, and its d
motion, yea, and also all the e
planets which move
in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.
Alma 30:44
False Doctrine #1: The Intelligent Design Theory
False Doctrine #2: Creationism
False Doctrine #3: The Big Bang Theory
False Doctrine #4: The Theory of Evolution
Correct Doctrine: Creation is by procreation. Objects carry seeds to create more of
their type. Thus mankind has a Supreme Creator.
Fallacy of False Dilemma II:
―These (Telestial candidates) are they who are thrust down to hell.‖
D&C 76:84
―For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my

67
first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither
wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad.‖
2 Ne. 2:11
False Doctrine #1: There is only a heaven and hell
False Doctrine #2: Things are either good or evil
Correct Doctrine: There are three Kingdoms of Glory and an Outer Darkness each with their
own moral theory.

69
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Standard Works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, © 1981 by the
Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, volume 1 The Early Church to the Dawn of
the Reformation, ©1984.
William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, God? A Debate Between a Christian
and an Atheist, © 2004 Oxford University Press, Inc.
Claude C. Albritton, Jr.; The Abyss of Time; © 1980 Freeman, Cooper and Company.
William J. Kaufmann, III; Universe; fourth edition, © 1994 W. H. Freeman and Company
Joseph Fielding Smith; Answers to Gospel Questions; volume 1; © 1957 Deseret Book
Company.
Joseph Fielding Smith; Answers to Gospel Questions; volume 6; © 1966 Deseret Book
Company.
Joseph Smith; Lectures on Faith, ©1835.
Moral Philosophy, edited by George Sher, © 2001 Wadsworth Group.
William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong; GOD? A Debate Between A
Christian and an Atheist; © 2004 Oxford University Press, Inc.
David Hume; Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion; first published 1779, published by
Penguin Classics 1990.

71
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
George Sher, Moral Philosophy, © 2001 Wadsworth Group.
Francis J. Beckwith, Do the Right Thing, © 2002 Wadsworth Group.
Clifton McIntosh, Reasoning and Rational Decision Making, © 2004.
Patricia Barnes-Svarney, Editorial Director; The New York Public Library Science Desk
Reference; © 1995 The Stonesong Press Inc. and The New York Public Library.
Deseret News 1997-98 Church Almanac; for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints; © 1996 Deseret News.
JPS Hebrew-English TANAKH; © 2000 Jewish Publication Society.
The NIV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament; The Nestle Greek Text translated
into English by Reverend Alfred Marshall; © 1976 The Zondervan Corporation.
John Ayto; Dictionary of Word Origins; © 1990.
Liddell and Scott; An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon; Impression of 1997, founded
upon the 7
th
edition of Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon of the first edition of
1889.

73
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, vol. 1 The Early Church to the Dawn of the
Reformation, © 1984.
Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, vol. 2 The Reformation to the Present Day,
© 1985.
David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, first published 1779, published in
Penguin Classics 1990.
The Bill of Rights of The Constitution of The United States of America, ratified 15
December 1791.
Joseph Smith, History of the Church, volume 1, © 1951 George Albert Smith.
Joseph Smith, History of the Church, volume 3, © 1948 George Albert Smith.
The Standard Works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, © 1981 by
corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
The NIV Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, the Nestle Greek Text with a literal
English translation by Reverend Alfred Marshall, © 1976 The Zondervan Corporation.
Thomas A. Robinson, Mastering Greek Vocabulary, © 1991 Hendrickson Publishers,
Inc., third printing 1994.
Joseph Smith, Lectures on Faith, winter of 1834-5.
1997-98 Church Almanac, © 1996 Deseret News.
Armand L. Mauss, All Abraham's Children, © 2003 by the Board of Trustees.

75
Bibliography
Travis Wayne Goodsell, An Introduction to Paleo-Hebrew Alphabet and Grammar A
New Theory, © 2015 Outskirts Press, Inc.
President Ezra Taft Benson, ―To the Youth of the Noble Birthright‖, © 1986 The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

77
Acknowledgments

Old Files Philosophy of Mormonism

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (15)

Similar to Old Files Philosophy of Mormonism

Similar to Old Files Philosophy of Mormonism (20)

Old Files Philosophy of Mormonism