On the Arguments of Ruthie Robertson

Ruthie Robertson is the recently fired instructor at BYU Idaho.  She made a face book post arguing against certain doctrines and policies of the church which employed her which resulted in her being fired – which should not be terribly surprising.  I would like to summarize her arguments to show why I disagree with them.

Her primary argument seems to be that the church is picking-and-choosing which hateful practices to follow from the Old Testament and which to ignore.  This argument highlights what I believe is clearly missing from whatever faith or testimony she thinks she has, which is that the church is lead by a prophet and apostles today.  There should be little question that the gospel of Jesus Christ has certain departures from the Law of Moses – particularly in practice.  What our teachings and practices should be currently is not based on picking-and-choosing from the Old Testament, but on the inspired leadership of those called as prophets, seers and revelators.   Her statement shows that she simply does not believe this.

She goes on to say that while the Book of Mormon does not mention homosexuality, it does condemn polygamy.  Yet she fails to mention that while the key chapter (Jacob 2), does condemn polygamy, it does leave the door open in verse 30 should God command otherwise.  This is picking-and-choosing.

She wraps up her manifesto by making an argument that our sins are part of who we are, and since God made us that way, it is not a sin.  This line of reasoning seems to take us to a conclusion that there is no such thing as sin.  The argument would go something like this:

P1:  God made us absolutely and is responsible for who we are.
P2:  Our sins are part of who we fundamentally are.
P3:  God is not a creator of sin

C1:  Nothing we do is a sin

My disagreement here is with both P1 and P2.  There is something about us (call it intelligence or what you will) that was not created nor made – not even by God.  So the fundamental part of who we are is necessary rather than contingent on God.  We are ultimately un-caused agents.  This then leads to a disagreement with P2 with regards to free will or agency.

Bottom line is that faithful members will believe that the church is lead by revelation rather than picking-and-choosing, and that we are all capable of choosing behaviors and repenting of sin.  Ruthie seems to be missing these parts.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “On the Arguments of Ruthie Robertson”


  1. 1 rozylass July 23, 2017 at 7:58 pm

    The argument that “God made us” and “we are who we are” is such a juvenile argument! Does she not believe in the law of chastity? I certainly found it difficult to keep that law through the years of being single and full of raging hormones. I’m sure Sister Sheri Dew has also had challenges in that area. Attraction is not a license to sin. This person needs to grow up and get with the program.

  2. 3 Peter July 23, 2017 at 10:49 pm

    Eric, do any of your posts ever NOT rely upon the argument “the Church is led by a Prophet and Apostles”? It really does get repetitious that you can never make a point or argument without resorting to the authority card. Remember you are given agency and intelligence to act for yourself, not rely upon the arm of flesh of the Q15.

    P.S. Sister Dew is a lesbian which is why she has been able to handle it for so long.

  3. 6 Eric Nielson July 23, 2017 at 11:17 pm

    This makes me wonder if you have ever read my blog at all. Let me review some of my recent posts in reverse order.

    On the hijacking post I argue that the 12 year old manifesto was a staged hijacking of a testimony, which was not based at all on the church being lead by prophets and apostles.

    On the Lebron James post I argue that Lebron is not better than Michael Jordan, and that in fact Kareem Abdul Jabbar is the best basketball player in history.

    On the Free Will being incompatible with God;s foreknowledge I argue that they are incompatible. This likely goes against the opinions on several general authorities.

    On the counterfeit post I argue that in addition to gay marriage being a counterfeit, there are actually many counterfeits, including heterosexual marriage outside the temple – no relying on authority.

    On the Elder High Priest post I argue that there is not much distiction between the High Priest and Elder office.

    On the Trump endorses Mormonism post I argue that Trump inviting the MoTab to sing at the inauguration was more of a Trump endorsement of Mormonism than a Mormon endorsement of Trump.

    I could go on and on, but since you are an uninformed, and unobservant idiot I can only assume you get the point. In this very post, two of the arguments are about Ruthie’s mis-characterization of scripture, and her absurd argument of ‘God made me this way’. Neither of which has anything to do with what prophets and apostles say. I regularly make points and arguments that have nothing to do with authority, you are just to twisted to see it. You cannot seem to imagine that anyone actually believes what the church teaches without being a blind follower. If you find me repetitious, you could always read something else. In fact, I would recommend reading in general to you.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Bloggernacle



I'm a Mormon.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 348 other followers

The Author

Archives

Blog Stats

  • 168,394 hits

%d bloggers like this: