Tarik
LaCour wrote an article, "Are Mormons
Christian? Not Really . . . " and I responded with an article, "Yes,
Latter-day Saints are Christians." Tarik has recently written a
rejoinder to my response and that of another Latter-day Saint with a blog post entitled,
"Answering My
Critics : A Response to Dennis Walker and Robert Boylan." I
will focus on his attempted response to my piece. Readers, to get the most of
this article, should read Tarik’s original piece followed by my response and
his subsequent rejoinder before continuing with this post. Tarik’s comments
will be indented, followed by my responses thereto.
Before
I begin, however, let me note that I have no ill-will towards Tarik; he strikes
me as being a bright fellow and I am sure he means well, even on this issue,
our disagreement notwithstanding. I am also glad to have read this portion when
speaking of myself and Dennis Walker:
I will spend most of this blog responding to
them, but before I do I would like to say that both of these gentlemen are my
friends, are good people, and I will address the arguments they made rather
than them as individuals.
At
the end of the day, as a Latter-day Saint apologist, what is most important to
me is not “winning” a theological debate but instead the truth, and I am sure
Tarik will at least appreciate that, at the end of the day, it is the truth we
want to get to, including on this important theological issue, as well as the
defence of the truth of the gospel. At times I may appear to be harsh, but such should not be construed as attacks on Tarik, but when it comes to the Gospel, I make no excuses and will defend and will unapologetically take no prisoners without engaging in compromise.
Before I respond to them, a point deserves to
be made in reference to President Holzapfel's point. Central to the truth
claims of Mormonism is that soon after the death of Jesus of Nazareth the
doctrines and church he established were lost, and remained lost until the time
of Joseph Smith, Jr. So, by definition Mormons do not regard the creeds of
Christendom (Nicene, Apostles, Athanasian, etc) as being reflective of true New
Testament Christianity. However, this still makes my point rather than refutes
it. If you say that you are not
pre-creedal Christians, you are still admitting that you do not in fact worship
the same God because these creeds define God and Christ as Christians define
them today. If you do not worship the same God, you are not of the same
faith, even if you use the same vocabulary. (emphasis added--RB)
From
the get-go, Tarik again misses the point about “Creedal Christianity”; as I
pointed out (and others did when discussing this on facebook with him), he is
guilty of equivocation by assuming that “Creedal Christianity” exhausts “Christianity”
evidenced especially by the portion I have put into bold. Furthermore, when he
attempts to respond to my article, he wrote:
Boylan's argument, like Dennis', results in
being a straw-man because he is making the point the LDS version of Christianity
is more in line with the New Testament than other Christians. That was not the point of my blog, so
whether it is correct or not is irrelevant, although I agree with much of what Boylan said, in particular his reference of
the Ante-Nicene Fathers. As pointed out earlier, the point of my blog was
to discuss the conflicting natures of God
in Mormonism and Christianity; not Thomas Aquinas' philosophy, the Ante-Nicene Fathers, or even which version of Christianity is
right. (emphasis added—RB)
Again,
note that Tarik is begging the question and guilty of equivocation, assuming
that "Christian" is exhausted by "creedal Christian." He
also dodges the use of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and the inspired New Testament
documents(!). He really should heed the words of his former mission president
and LDS NT scholar, Richard Holzapfel, with respect to LDS being
"Pre-Creedal Christian” being valid and that LDS are indeed “Christian.”
Ultimately, not only would that make the earliest Christian writers
non-Christians, it would mean that the New Testament authors and even Jesus
himself were not Christians(!) My point still stands, and he still has to show
us why a later theology and creeds should be privileged as exhaustively
defining the parameters of “Christian” as he did in the original article.
Some
of his other “arguments” against my piece were, to put things nicely, lame:
First, I go by the name Tarik; David is my
fathers name.
I
only called him "Tarik David LaCour" once; I referred to him as
"Tarik" throughout the rest of the response. Further, on facebook,
he, until recently, went by "Tarik David" (now it is "Tarik
D.") This is a pathetic attempt to portray me as weak in my research and
argumentation and/or to score a superficial "point" against me.
I am a
philosopher who happens to have a blog and LDS theology and doctrine is not
what my blog is dedicated to, so I am not an "LDS blogger".
He
is a Latter-day Saint who blogs; my use of the phrase "Latter-day Saint
blogger" to describe Tarik was not necessarily a mistake on my behalf,
especially as some of his posts are in favour of the LDS position against her
detractors, such as this
response to John Dehlin (which was very well done). But if he wants me to stop using the
term "LDS blogger," I will happily give him that.
Third, to call a believing member of the
Church as being in line with the likes of Sandra Tanner is both insulting and
false; I have a strong commitment and testimony of the Restored Gospel and to
attack a fellow servant in the vineyard is disgusting and contemptible.
To
claim that "Mormonism" is not "Christian" as Tarik did in
his original post is en par with the likes of Sandra Tanner and other enemies
of the Gospel of Jesus Christ on that point, and I stand by that. Tarik may not
like that, but, to borrow, in part, from Ben Shapiro, "Facts don't care about your
feelings and neither do I." What is disgusting and contemptible was
Tarik's original article and the fact he still continues to stand by it.
Further
contemptible (as well as idolatrous and blasphemous) is Tarik's prayer life and
strong Roman Catholic leanings in that regard. Apart from his praying to Thomas
Aquinas (discussed in my previous response to Tarik), we also have this
disturbing from him from a recent
public facebook post (emphasis added):
The only office with more incompetence in it
than the White House is the UVU Financial Aid Office.
Mary, mother
of God, pray for me!
I
can honestly guarantee that Mary has not heard a single prayer Tarik has ever
offered up to her (as well as Aquinas for that matter), as well as any Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox has ever
offered up to/through her.
On
Aquinas, Tarik wrote the following:
Something else that disturbed me was his
linking me with Thomas Aquinas, which caught me by surprise. First, I am not a
Thomist, I am a Humean. Second, I mentioned Aquinas only once in my post and
said that Mormon's conception of God was far different than his. While I do
revere Aquinas and he has had an influence on me, his ideas are not central to
the philosophy I defend.
I
never said in my response that Tarik is a Thomist; however, he is clearly
enamoured with Aquinas, as seen in the words of praise and the idolatrous
prayer to Thomas Aquinas (I could be wrong, but I doubt Tarik prays to David
Hume). Readers of his blog posts should be aware of that, as it clearly has had
(theologically, I would argue, negative) influence on Tarik (and yes, I have
also read Aquinas’ Summa Theologica
[twice!] in case someone wishes to argue I say this out of ignorance).
Whether
or not he will admit it or not, it is clear that Aquinas, his ex-LDS friend who
is now a Roman Catholic Deacon (Scott Dodge), and others have (negatively on
this score) influenced Tarik about the meaning of "Christian" and the
scope of the term. I, for one, would prefer to privilege the New Testament and writings of early Christianity, not the later, perverted forms of Christianity, to help define the meaning of the term “Christian.”
Scott Dodge, and Thomas Aquinas before him, is someone who holds to a
perversion of the gospel, one that cannot save and falls under the anathema of
Gal 1:6-9. I don't say this out of ignorance; I am a former Roman Catholic; spent five years studying theology in a Roman Catholic institution (Pontifical University of Ireland, Maynooth), and have studied Roman Catholic theology, especially key issues about Mariology and the Mass, for many years.
Clearly,
Tarik has a "soft spot" for the Church of Rome; and a very disturbing
one at that. If Tarik ever wants to discuss Roman Catholicism, its theology,
doctrine, and history, and why his praying to Mary and other Roman Catholic
"saints" is not just aberrant but an act of idolatry, as well as why
Rome is not the true Church, I will happily dialogue with him (or anyone else who is drawn by Rome's claims to final authority), whether in
email, skype, etc.
If
Tarik (or anyone) wishes to do a study of Roman Catholicism, see, for instance,
my suggested bibliography on key issues (Papacy; Mass; Mariology).
Ultimately,
Tarik’s initial piece was rather weak; his attempted defence of his initial
post in this “response” was even worse. I do hope that Tarik will reconsider
his position on this topic. Furthermore, Tarik should be prayed for (to the
Father, through the Son, not to/through Mary, Thomas Aquinas, etc) that he will
rethink some of his errant beliefs and blasphemous practices and for him to
become a consistent Latter-day Saint, not a Latter-day Saint who engages in, and
accepts these aberrant practices and beliefs.
