Critiquing: Is There Anything in the Gospel of John That a Mormon Might Object To?

August 24, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Gospel of John — Mormon Doctrine — Jesus’ Divinity — Pre-existence — Trinity

---

Overview and Structure

The content addresses whether a Bible study leader should anticipate any objections from a Mormon participant regarding the Gospel of John. The conversation revolves around differences between traditional Christian and Mormon beliefs, particularly focusing on the nature and divinity of Jesus, the concept of pre-existence, and the doctrine of the Trinity.

Key Issues and Logical Inconsistencies

1. Assumptions about Mormon Doctrine

The content assumes a comprehensive understanding of Mormon doctrine without sufficient substantiation:

“Now, according to Mormon doctrine, Jesus is the Spirit brother of Lucifer, which probably should be qualified.”

This assertion is problematic because it lacks detailed backing or citations from Mormon texts. The content makes broad claims without offering concrete evidence, leading to potential misrepresentations.

2. Unsubstantiated Claims

Many claims are presented as fact without supporting evidence:

“And that is who is Jesus. Now, according to Mormon doctrine, Jesus is the Spirit brother of Lucifer.”

The obligation to substantiate such significant claims is crucial, as it would ensure the argument’s credibility. Unsupported statements can lead to misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

3. Logical Fallacies

Straw Man Fallacy

The content simplifies and misrepresents Mormon beliefs to make them easier to refute:

“Ontologically, in terms of His being, He’s just like you and I. He’s just worked at it longer to attain a virtue that puts Him closer to Godhood, or actually in Godhood, attaining Godhood, and we can do the same.”

By mischaracterizing Mormon views on Jesus’ nature, the content creates a straw man, which weakens the overall argument.

False Dichotomy

A false dichotomy is presented by implying only two interpretations of Jesus’ divinity:

“Therefore Jesus must be the uncreated Creator and therefore God, or else He would have had to create Himself since everything that was created was created by the Word.”

This oversimplification ignores the nuances in both theological discussions and interpretations.

4. Cognitive Biases

Confirmation Bias

The content appears to seek out information that supports preconceived notions while ignoring contrary evidence:

“There is only one being who is not created, but is infinite or should say eternal by nature, no beginning, no end, and that’s God.”

By emphasizing this point, the content shows a tendency to reinforce existing beliefs rather than objectively evaluating Mormon doctrine.

5. Testing Alleged Promises

The content claims Jesus is the uncreated Creator based on an interpretation of the Gospel of John:

“All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him, nothing came into being that has come into being.”

To critically assess such theological claims, one could consider potential methods for testing or evaluating these promises through historical and textual analysis of biblical and extrabiblical sources. However, theological claims often resist empirical testing, highlighting the need for critical scrutiny and evidence-based belief.

Degree of Belief and Available Evidence

The critique stresses the importance of aligning one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence. For instance, the content’s assertion:

“The unique deity of Christ, not in any sense similar to what the LDS teach about the so-called deity of Christ is clarified in the book of John.”

This should be critically examined by mapping the degree of belief to the actual textual evidence available. One must scrutinize whether the Gospel of John unequivocally supports this interpretation and how this interpretation aligns with broader theological scholarship.

Detailed Analysis

Unclear Terminology

The content often uses terms that lack clear definitions or are not universally accepted:

“We believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. We believe each are God.”

Clarifying these terms would enhance understanding and reduce ambiguity. The term “God” can vary significantly in meaning across different theological frameworks.

Contradictory Statements

The content points out contradictions within Mormon theology but lacks a systematic analysis:

“The irony is that what they say under God is contradicted on the next page and what they say about the Godhead.”

A thorough, systematic comparison would strengthen this argument, showing detailed instances of these contradictions.

Engaging Mormon Perspectives

While the content focuses on differences, it could benefit from a more engaging approach that encourages dialogue and mutual understanding:

“And sometimes I think a lot of Mormons haven’t really thought carefully enough about this.”

Instead of assuming a lack of thought, fostering a respectful dialogue might yield more constructive discussions.

Conclusion

The content’s logical coherence is undermined by unsubstantiated claims, logical fallacies, and cognitive biases. A more rigorous approach that substantiates claims, avoids fallacies, and encourages respectful dialogue would improve its credibility. Aligning the degree of belief with available evidence and clearly defining terms would further enhance the discussion.

---

I invite you to discuss these arguments further in the comments section, as continued dialogue can provide deeper insights and understanding.