Eternal Pool

I’ve been saying for years that theologies that include the divine council and divine mediatory figures are (1) not coherent with a biblical metaphysic, (2) drawn from a methodology that prioritizes extrabiblical sources over the Bible, and (3) far too Mormon-friendly. Well, here’s a Mormon apologist using these ideas to support his polytheism. (It’s not quite right to bring Bauckham into this though).

“I have better news … there is Hell.”

I am fine with/expect LDS members disagreeing with the gospel. I would just appreciate the admission that it is indeed a different gospel than what any Christian believes

The dumbest people you know, Believe that Trump stages fake assassination attempts. They can’t be helped.

What topics would you like me to discuss on the podcast that I haven't covered yet?

Christians: “Jesus created Lucifer” Mormons: “Ok, then that means Jesus knew Lucifer would become Satan and created him out of nothing anyways. Therefore, Jesus created evil and Satan” Christians: “nuh uh”

I have a number of questions on this. We've sparred with Hayden for years now. Honestly, a broken record, or a one-string-banjo. Same MO as a number of RC apologists, with the same problem: they love to be skeptics, but, they loathe to stand up and defend a positive position. I mean, it's easy to say "You need a prophetic/infallible authority" but then you have to demonstrate that YOUR prophetic/infallible authority is the proper one. That's uber tough for LDS who want to play church history when...they only have 200 years of church history to work with, and the last thirty years of that have gotten really messy. Anyway, I am told at least Carroll is “orthodox” on the LDS doctrine of God (unlike Hansen). In fact, I learned today that Hansen is all gung-ho for Open Theism, too, which really, when you think about it, makes sense in Mormonism. I mean, there is ZERO grounds for a being who was was subject to time and progress could in some way become knowledgeable about all events in time itself. Makes zero sense. That puts he at odds on a key theological issue with his buddy Carroll. So…who gets to decide? Is there an authority? And isn’t that what this supposed debate would be about? What is the objective standard? If Smith could be wrong about God himself, progression, exaltation…why think he had a clue about the canon of Scripture? Indeed, why think the modern LDS view of canonization is even slightly like Smith’s? If it were, the D&C would have 1,000 sections by now. But it doesn’t (and it won’t). So what about Carroll? Is he more “under the authority” of the GAs than Hansen? Or is it “sola Carroll” just like it is plainly “sola Hansen”? So one side has a position to defend, the other can just shift and change and blow with the wind. Makes for a useless endeavor. Further, does he get to join Hansen in rejecting such things as Noahic flood? If you can reject that, why not completely modify the BoM story to make it just a tiny little local group (and hence doesn't have to have historical evidence)? Clearly, Smith did not do that, but that seems to be the trend today. Is the Mormonism Carroll would be coming from even definable? Oh, and would this be another "Hey, I don't have to defend anything, only you have to do that" type of a joke? It's been maddening to watch Hansen do that with Heschmeyer, Austin, and me. It is so massively disingenuous. Will Carroll man up and actually present a discernible, definable, LDS position? Or would it be another, "Hey, Mormonism could be untrue, but my objections still hold." That would be such a waste of time. I can't even find it within me to respect someone who could be that vacuous. Now, what would be wildly amazing would be if Carroll would do what no RC apologist has been willing to do: take the other side. In other words, defend the historicity, and necessity, of the so-called "Restoration," along with the current abiding validity and necessity of the General Authorities of the LDS Church. Yeah, not going to happen. So how about it? Is Hayden Carroll a real Mormon, or a neo-Mormon, or something in between? Does he have a historically definable position that he can't just redefine on a whim in the middle of the debate? Or is he just an uber skeptic who wants to beat the “you need an external [infallible] authority to define canon” drum without being willing to positively defend the alleged authority he has chosen to follow?