The Confutation of Mormonism: Part 2

3: Romans 1:18 - 32 

Rom. 1:18 - 20:  God created everything, & gave it a specific moral intention — to testify to **HIS** image (existence & attributes) & **HIS** authority.   


Rom. 1:19 - 23: God indicts & condemns humanity for suppressing His image & authority & supplanting it with their own image & others drawn from the created order, which is how they wound up with idols that looked like people & animals. 


Rom. 1:24 - 27: The people did worship & sexual ethics accordingly. 


Rom. 28 - 32:  God proverbed them by permitting kitchen sink immorality that led to the rise & fall of multiple civilizations. 


The tradition bound view says that 1:26 - 27 can’t be restricted to homosexual temple prostitution & other cultic acts because “natural” means “heterosexual/heteronormative” & “unnatural” means “homosexual.”


That can’t be true for multiple reasons.

  • 1:20 states the moral intention of the created order is to testify to God’s image & authority.   
  • If “natural” = “heteronormative” then that necessarily entails the human body & psyche is definitionally heterosexual.   
  • AND God (after indicting humanity for doing worship & sexual ethics out of their own & other created images) allows us to use the human image to warrant sexual ethics.  
The Society of Latter Day Saints, in contrast to Christianity, derives both worship ethics & sexual ethics from this text.   The tradition-bound view within Christianity divorces worship ethics (Theology Proper) from sexual ethics when considering this text.    On the one hand, God has no sexual characteristics, is not created, & has no body — on the other hand, the human image serves as a sufficient epistemic warrant for sexual ethics. 

Mormonism’s theology of God & its sexual ethics are classic example of reverse engineering both theology about God and sex & gender ethics from the human image — which the text prohibits. 

On the one hand the consistent Mormon will accuse the trinitarian Christian of suppressing the truth about God’s existence, attributes, & authority & substituting his own ideas —- and on the other they are doing theology & sexual ethics out of their own inage.    They sound like atheists claiming Classical Christian Theism is wish fulfillment on the one while having exactly no evidence that numbers can exist without the concomitant existence of a mind capable of underwriting numbers & math. 

O LORD, Hear our prayer(s)! 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Romans 1:18 - 32 & Leviticus 18

  Paul is following the basic outline of a suzerain covenant in general     & the outline of Lev. 18 in particular.   Shema & Decalogue (Rom. 1:18 - 20)  God’s Image testifies to His attributes & Law.    God created people. His temple bears His Image & runs according to his Law & Gospel.    This corresponds to Lev. 18 : 1 & 2. A - Rom.    1:18 - 19.  God’s wrath falls on those who suppress His image.   B - Rom 1:20  - For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made so that people are without excuse.  What is the teleological intent of the created order?    To serve as an epistemic warrant on par with God Himself? No!  It’s purpose is to serve as a pointer to God who is Himself the only sufficient epistemic warrant for all faith & practice....
Read more

Covenant Theology In Outline Form (Part 11)

Isaiah 6:1- 13 Shema   In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. Historical Prologue   And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the  Lord  of hosts!” Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and...
Read more

Favorite Fallacies & Homosexuality

Thesis - The tradition bound view on homosexuality commits a number of logical, epistemic, & exegetical fallacies.  1-  Is - Ought Fallacy  - Human anatomy is said to provide    a blueprint for sexual ethics.  We examined this in my previous article.  A moral “ought” is derived from a physical “is.”  The disputant makes an illicit leap from what is to what ought to be. A classic example is the way some homosexuals defend their sexual ethics by appealing to their biology/genetics.  2 -  Vicious Circularity   - Human anatomy & physiology are raised to the status due a non-arbitrary epistemic warrant.    A non-arbitrary epistemic warrant must be necessary, reasoned, & principled.  In truth, the body is unnecessary to deduce sexual ethics. By way of contrast, God’s nature is definitionally necessary, insofar as God is a necessary being, &, since God is infinite, eternal, & unchangeable in being, w...
Read more