On Jacob’s Response to Alex O’Connor

 

Alex O’Connor in the past has been a very staunch, uncompromising young atheist who it seems has softened his stance quite a bit recently, which I hadn’t been aware of until I watched the above video by Jacob Hansen; and Jacob does a good job of quoting and engaging with his remarks. But Jacob has also made some technical errors, which if he fixes he will be able to do a much better job of engaging with Alex. Jacob begins the video with the following statement:

“So about five or six years ago I discovered a young British YouTuber named Alex O’Connor. Initially he just seemed like a mini-Christopher Hitchens, recycling the same old atheist talking points. However, one day I saw a video where he went through the many logical fallacies made by Christopher Hitchens, and why many of Hitchens’ arguments were actually very weak, or nonsensical. I was surprised, and then I began to notice in subsequent videos that Alex’s tone began to change. Suddenly, despite his continued atheism, he seemed totally earnest in his seeking.”

Then he shows a video clip from Alex, the transcript of which is as follows:

“The last time I debated Jonathan a number of years ago, when I was just a few months out of being a teenager, I said that even if I found Christianity to be true, I still wouldn’t want to worship the God that it promotes. I now since then have realized how irrational and self-defeating this assertion is. I stand before you today as an example of a non-resistant non-believer. I think it would be great if God existed; I really do. I would absolutely love to escape death. I would relish being the recipient of unconditional love. Less selfishly, I would love to be able to worship that which deserves to be worshipped. So when faced with a Psalm, like Psalm 139, I am overwhelmed with a sense not of beauty and consolation, but envy and disappointment: ‘Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?’ Where can I go, I should ask in response, to find it?

“Of course you cannot know my heart, you can’t know if I am truly as non-resistant as I claim; but I hope that my actions here might betray me. As a Catholic child I was once an altar boy; I would serve the altar of Mother Church every Sunday, dressed in a white robe. In the time since then, I have to put it mildly, been looking for God. I went to Catholic schools; I studied philosophy and theology at A levels; I made a career out of engaging with religious arguments; I have explored arguments from contingency, from fine-tuning, from motions, from mathematics, indeed from irreducible complexity, and the alleged resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

“It may surprise my followers online to learn that at university I visited numerous churches, on the invitation of various friends; I spent hours talking with religious friends, until the sun rose again, if you like. I attended Bible groups regularly too, which might surprise people as well—and in fact, I still do attend such groups. Just recently I agreed to embark on a series of study of the wisdom literature, specifically reading it again in the hopes that this time I might finally feel a divine presence seeping from between the lines. I moved into a house for a year with two devoutly Christian housemates, with the express intention of seeing if the obvious truth of Christianity and theism that people like to talk about can be found in the minutiae of daily life.

“I read Athanasius and Anselm; I read Augustine and Aquinas; I looked in Julian of Norwich, and Katherine of Siena; I looked at the sociological origin of religious belief in Durkheim, and Marx, and Freud, and Young. I looked at religious experience in William James, and Rudolph Otto. I have looked in the modern works of people like Ed. Feser, and Bill Craig, and Michael Murray, and Richard Swinburn, Alvin Plantinga. I have looked in poetry; I have looked in the Psalms; I have looked in Job; I have looked in Ecclesiastes; I have looked in Dostoevsky. I read C.S. Lewis; I listened to worship music; I prayed; I studied the gospel; I even got an actual degree in theology from a university.”

I am impressed! I commend Alex for his honest research into religion, in the hope of finding some revealed truth, or some genuine indication of God’s existence. He didn’t mention the Book of Mormon! I am guessing that is because he hasn’t read it yet! I highly recommend him to read it. Here is an interesting quote from the Book of Mormon for him to think about:

“For he that diligently seeketh shall find, and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them by the power of the Holy Ghost; as well in these times, as in times of old; and as well in times of old, as in times to come; wherefore the course of the Lord is one eternal round.” (1 Nephi 10:19)

If he sincerely and honestly wants to know of the truth about the existence of God, the Book of Mormon can help him. That is why it was given, to reveal that truth (and much more) to those who honestly and sincerely seek it. That truth will be revealed to him as he sincerely and prayerfully reads and ponders the contents of the book. Jacob then continues his comments as follows:

“Now Alex still holds on strong to the idea that God does not exist; but over the years he has become far less dogmatic, and he is open to hearing all points of view. Alex is one of the rare people who genuinely steelmans the other side, before offering critiques; and frankly, Alex has some excellent critiques of credal Christianity. With that in mind, it has also been really interesting to see how his honest seeking has also led him to some extremely similar conclusions to those held by Latter-day Saints. For example Alex makes a very sharp and well-founded critique of the credal Christians’ notions about Adam and Eve. In the following he offers a response to the Christian apologist Ken Ham’s view on the Fall:”

The only issue I have with this statement is that there is no such thing as “creedal Christianity”. Something is either “Christianity” or it isn’t; but there is no such thing as “creedal” vs. “non-creedal” Christianity. If he wants to distinguish between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the one hand, and traditional or historical Christianity on the other, that is not the best way to make that distinction. The two major creeds of Christendom, generally accepted and adopted by mainstream Christianity in general, are the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed; both of which teach doctrines fully acceptable to LDS. And the LDS Church also has a creed; it is called the Articles of Faith.

The implied suggestion of the above statement is that it is inherently wrong to have a creed! Or that the LDS Church does not have a creed! That is incorrect on both accounts. There is nothing wrong with having a creed; and LDS Church very much has a creed. The Articles of Faith is a fully fledged creed, no difference. So both sides are “creedal” in that sense of the term. They both have a creed. What really distinguishes LDS from traditional or historical Christianity is the belief in the restoration of the gospel in the latter days. That is the real difference between the two sides that needs to be focused on and emphasized, not the “creeds”. Constantly harping on about and obsessing with the “creeds” obscures that essential distinction.

Perhaps it would be a good idea for the Church to officially declare once for all exactly where it stands with regard to the historic creeds of Christianity; which ones it accepts, and which ones it rejects, and why; so that Latter-day Saints can then focus on more important theological differences between the two sides that distinguishes between them—and engage more intelligently in a discussion of them. The actual theological differences between the restored gospel of Jesus Christ and traditional and historic Christianity are far more significant and important than this LDS obsession with the creeds.

Then the conversation enters into some complex philosophical issues most of which I will skip, except for two points brought up which I will briefly comment on:

The first is the problem of evil. In LDS theology, the problem of evil is resolved by accepting the complete libertarian freewill and moral agency of man. God respects that moral agency, and grants man the freedom to exercise it at his own discretion—to choose between good and evil—so that the judgement that God will bring on them on judgement day will be just. Evil exists in the world because mankind are free to yield to the enticing of Satan and choose evil rather than good—and many do. In Evangelical, Calvinist, and Protestant theology in general, that freewill is non-existent. Everything has been predestined and predetermined by God. But that is not true of all Christendom. In Catholic and Orthodox Christianity (which are the majority), freedom of the will is fully accepted.

The second point brought up is the meaning of “sin”. Sin is not “missing the mark”. Sin is identified, in both the Bible as well as in modern LDS scripture, as the “transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4; James 2:11; Romans 5:13; 2 Nephi 2:7, 13; Mosiah 2:33; Alma 42:17-24; D&C 88:35). “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not steal,” “Thou shalt not bear false witness” etc. is the “law”. You “sin” when you break the law. You “repent” when you stop breaking that law, and start keeping it. And Jesus is not standing by us helping us to “try and try again” until we “hit the mark!” He is there to forgive us our sins when we believe in him, exercise faith, and genuinely and sincerely repent of our sins—so that we can then be forgiven, and move on in the path of eternal life:

“Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I the Lord remember them no more. By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold he will confess them, and forsake them.” (D&C 58:42-43)

LDS Theology is Sola Scriptura!

 

I came across the above video on the Thoughtful Faith channel which I thought was interesting and worth commenting on. It is about 51 minutes long, and it would be a bit too tedious to unpack it and discuss it in detail. Luckily that is not necessary, because the main message that he wants to convey through it is well expressed in the video title:

“Why Protestants Are WRONG About The Bible – Sola Scriptura Debunked”

And that is what I am going to focus on. In short, LDS theology and doctrine is very much Sola Scriptura—the only difference being that we have a lot more “Scriptura” than traditional Christianity does. In addition to the Bible, we also have the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, which together with the Bible constitute the canonized scriptures of the Church—the Standard Works. But strictly speaking, the theology and doctrine of the LDS Church is derived from that canon of scripture—and from no other source. Sure enough we believe in continuing revelation, and in modern prophets and Apostles. That is what distinguishes the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from all other Christian churches. But unless a new revelation is received and canonized, the theology and doctrine of the restored Church is strictly contained in, and derived from the existing scriptural canon. Anything that deviates from that, or is not supported by that—regardless of who teaches it, or where it comes from—is not LDS doctrine. This has been the verdict of the past leaders of the Church (emphasis added):

“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said; if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances by which we measure every man’s doctrine.

“You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only insofar as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203–4.)

“If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve, and sustained by the body of the Church [i.e. canonized]. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false, and you are not bound to accept it as truth.” (Harold B. Lee, European Area Conference of the Church, Munich, Germany, 1973.)

“If it is not in the Standard Works, we may well assume that it is speculation, man’s own personal opinion; and if it contradicts what is in the scripture, it is not true. This is the standard by which we measure all truth.” (Harold B. Lee, 11th President, Improvement Era, January 1969, p. 13.)

“The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price. These have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.” (B. H. Roberts, Deseret News (July 24, 1921) sec. 4:7.)

“I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world … to be satisfied with anything I do [or say], unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied … Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, ‘If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,’ this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 3:5.).

“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith, Deseret Book, 1976. p. 194)

And LDS scripture confirms this:

D&C 33:

16 And the Book of Mormon and the holy scriptures are given of me for your instruction; and the power of my Spirit quickeneth all things.

D&C 42:

12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the gospel.

D&C 42:

59 Thou shalt take the things which thou hast received, which have been given unto thee in my scriptures for a law [including doctrine], to be my law to govern my church;

In the above video, Jacob also gives a quote from Elder Jeffrey R. Holland; but in that quote Elder Holland is not arguing against Sola Scriptura; what he is saying is that Sola Scriptura is not limited to the Bible; it includes modern LDS scripture—plus any further revelations or scripture that might subsequently be canonized.

The way in which Jacob Hansen argues against Sola Scriptura in Protestantism, however, would equally undermine Sola Scriptura in Mormonism—because both are equally Sola Scriptura. The fact that Latter-day Saints also believe in continuing revelation, and in modern day prophets and Apostles, does not alter that fact. The nature of the argument remains the same. The theology of the restored Church is strictly contained in the scriptural canon of the Church—and nowhere else. So Jacob has gone off on a tangent again, substituting his own ideas, views, and concepts for LDS beliefs and doctrines.