"Atheists are anti-Christs." - paraphrase of Dallin Oaks

[_EmilyAnn]

Serious question (because I really do not know the answer):

First: Is someone who does not believe in the existence of Jesus* , by this statement of Oaks, then an atheist?
[* I cited the name as "Jesus" instead of "Christ" or "Jesus Christ" because use of "Christ" in any way introduces theological complications into the mix that are not intentionally included in my question.]
If so, then all Jews are, by his definition, "atheists"???

Second: Whose concept of "God/god/"father" " is he citing? It sounds like the concept that Oaks alone holds, and that he is then holding as definitive for every human being?
If this is so, then he is saying that Hindus, for example, are atheists...and Einstein too...and most Native Americans who believe in their tribal religions as well.

If so, then the majority of the world's human population are, by his definition, atheists.

Correct???

[_canadaduane]

If so, then the majority of the world's human population are, by his definition, atheists.

Yeah, but he generously offers to suspend judgment on anyone whose belief kinda-sorta-maybe sounds like his version of God, because there's a much higher chance that they could become convinced that their version of God is a good-faith estimate of his version of God, and that his is therefore the right one.

[_Equality]

One of the reasons that it's hard to believe, as a member, that atheists have any kind of legitimate morality, is that atheists have no obligation to maintain a fore-ordained set of behavioral rules. They appear shifty--their views can change over time, and this upsets the believer. If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, then surely only an immutable set of rules can govern appropriate behavior.

But in the absence of believing members changing their viewpoints, many believers fail to see that it's The Church that does and must change over time. The Church must change its set of behavioral rules in order to adapt to new information and an evolving zeitgeist. For this strategy to succeed, it must be allowed to change quickly enough so as to adapt, but not so quickly so as to appear to be changing within a single generation.

When someone changes his mind about the church, and abandons the theistic worldview (in which morality is divinely originated), he is becoming a church unto himself. He is essentially saying, I will change my views as I see fit, given new information and an evolving zeitgiest. At this level, The Church becomes a peer--a competitor in the space of proclaiming appropriate behavior. And The Church can't stand to be anything but the One True Church.

Insightful comment.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Speaking at the BYU-I devotional on February 25, 2014 Elder Dallin H. Oaks said the following (emphasis mine):

"The Apostle John uses the term anti-Christ to describe one who “denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22). Today, those who deny the existence of God are called atheists. Some of these ridicule the faith of those who believe in what cannot be proven, even as they aggressively deny a godly existence they cannot disprove."

Oaks is a paid advocate of religion and a practitioner of priest craft.

[_Maksutov]

Speaking at the BYU-I devotional on February 25, 2014 Elder Dallin H. Oaks said the following (emphasis mine):

"The Apostle John uses the term anti-Christ to describe one who “denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22). Today, those who deny the existence of God are called atheists. Some of these ridicule the faith of those who believe in what cannot be proven, even as they aggressively deny a godly existence they cannot disprove."

Oaks is a paid advocate of religion and a practitioner of priest craft.

Isn't that the definition of "apostle"?

Show some respect. He's (supposedly) the best and the brightest of the snake oil salesmen. Although he can't do the deepity like old Maxwell did.

[_Aristotle Smith]

As usual, Mormons can't actually read a Bible:

18. Children, it is the last hour! As you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. From this we know that it is the last hour. 19. They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But by going out they made it plain that none of them belongs to us. 20. But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and all of you have knowledge. 21. I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and you know that no lie comes from the truth. 22. Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23. No one who denies the Son has the Father; everyone who confesses the Son has the Father also. 24. Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25. And this is what he has promised us, eternal life.

1. Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3. and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming; and now it is already in the world.

1 John read in context has nothing to do with atheism. It is combatting a common 1st century heresy called docetism. This was the idea that Jesus wasn't really human, he really didn't exist as flesh and blood, he only seemed to. The important phrase here is "every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God". In other words, those who are anti-Christ are the docetists because they deny a fundamental aspect of who Jesus was, namely His humanity.

The other point to note is that these people are those who had left John's church. That's why he says, "They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us." In other words, they used to be part of John's church, now they are not, and that is what makes them anti-Christ.

So in summary, to be anti-Christ by John's definition you need to 1) Be a Christian at one point and 2) Deny a fundamental aspect of who Jesus was (be a docetist or something like it). In fact, this is the only way the passage makes any sense. You can't deny this kind of tenet positively unless you were once a Christian of the type in John's church.

Atheists are not anti-Christ, they don't believe in God. Similarly, the pagan polytheists of John's time were not labelled anti-Christ, they simply didn't believe in the same way as the Christians did. My point is that believing in a system that is mutually incompatible with Christianity does NOT make one anti-Christ.

Stop cherry picking and proof texting Mormons.

[_ZelphtheGreat]

Why is someone who does not believe "Anti"?

That reasoning is dumber than Muslims justifying killing unbelievers.

[_Lavender]

One of the reasons that it's hard to believe, as a member, that atheists have any kind of legitimate morality, is that atheists have no obligation to maintain a fore-ordained set of behavioral rules. They appear shifty--their views can change over time, and this upsets the believer. If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, then surely only an immutable set of rules can govern appropriate behavior.

But in the absence of believing members changing their viewpoints, many believers fail to see that it's The Church that does and must change over time. The Church must change its set of behavioral rules in order to adapt to new information and an evolving zeitgeist. For this strategy to succeed, it must be allowed to change quickly enough so as to adapt, but not so quickly so as to appear to be changing within a single generation.

When someone changes his mind about the church, and abandons the theistic worldview (in which morality is divinely originated), he is becoming a church unto himself. He is essentially saying, I will change my views as I see fit, given new information and an evolving zeitgiest. At this level, The Church becomes a peer--a competitor in the space of proclaiming appropriate behavior. And The Church can't stand to be anything but the One True Church.

Insightful comment.

I loved this insightful response. It's worth mentioning from Cialdini's book Influence, that people who views others as having changed their mind (based on facts not faith) and are no longer consistent are seen as indecisive, confused, two-faced, or even mentally ill. On the other side, a high degree of consistency is associated with personal and intellectual strength. Thus staying consistent allows people the luxury of not having to think about it. People can avoid the labor of thinking, of weighing the facts, looking at the evidence. But because we as exmormons have changed our minds and are no longer consistent we must be mentally ill or anti-Christ atheist. It's easier to believe that at least, they were told it from an authority- it must be true. Sheeple.

[_Kent]

He defines anti-Christ as someone who denieth the father and son. Then he defines those who deny the existence of God as atheist. Therefore he is calling all atheists anti-Christs. Does that not sit well with your claim to be atheist?

It's John who defines anti-Christ as someone who denies the Father and Son, and the dictionary that defines those who deny the existence of God as atheist. I'm therefore offended to the core by both, and by Oaks for approving of it. I may never recover.

[_Bazooka]

He defines anti-Christ as someone who denieth the father and son. Then he defines those who deny the existence of God as atheist. Therefore he is calling all atheists anti-Christs. Does that not sit well with your claim to be atheist?

It's John who defines anti-Christ as someone who denies the Father and Son, and the dictionary that defines those who deny the existence of God as atheist. I'm therefore offended to the core by both, and by Oaks for approving of it. I may never recover.

Borrow your sisters copy of "Long Haired Lover..." (12 inch remix extended version) and Oaks won't seem so bad....