Wednesday, November 08, 2006

It Doesn't Matter at Heart

Bob, but I don't care what your points are. And I don't read them to prove my indifference.
(Shawn McCraney, email from Nov 6, 2006 after publicly requesting I send him info on the meaning of the Greek word 'proskuneo'.)
This is perhaps the clearest statement I've ever seen of the true values of an anti-Mormon when it comes to getting the story right. Publicly he spoke of wanting to get the story correct. He wrote his response before I emailed him, then responded privately as above.

When will people learn that folks who make their living attacking other people's faith have no interest in getting it right? They want to reinforce what people think they already "know", and develop a following to sell merchandise and collect love offerings. Shawn's web site has announced the creation of a 501(c)3 for their "ministry". The sole purpose for this designation is to treat contributions as charitable gifts for the purpose of encouraging donations and reducing tax consequences.

We know he doesn't do it because he loves to learn.

Monday, October 30, 2006

Ain't Got a Heart in Real Matters

What should one conclude from a person who yells the Mormons tell lies, but when confronted with evidence his own statements about LDS doctrine are inaccurate, runs and hides? Here is how the email exchange with Shawn McCraney, host of Heart of the Matter, finished up. Since he has responded by using one-word answers, it clearly isn't that he lacks time to respond. It is something else. Whatever that something else is, it apparently justifies in his mind ignoring his own promises to interact with LDS theological positions. This is how Mormoninfo.org, Josephlied.com, Witforjesus.org, Aaron Schafovaloff and Onelivingtruth.com have likewise ended. I am not trying to brag, I just want to point out that when challenged to provide sources, especially from scripture, to defend their positions, most conversations stop like a tank in mud. Shawn is no different, but that should tell those folks wondering about the LDS position's viability when put head-to-head with anti-Mormon "experts".

_________________________________

From: shawn@bornagainmormon.com
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 2:15 PM
To: RV
Subject: Re: Tuesday's Show Oct 24, 2006

redundant


_________________________________
From: RV Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 05:37 PM To: shawn@bornagainmormon.com
Subject: RE: Tuesday's Show Oct 24, 2006

Aw, schucks. Yep, your super intellect and insight has won me over. When can I join your cult? Those are great answers. Very Christian. I want to be just like you, if this is the converted, improved version which brought your daughter to tears on the show.

I can't imagine what you were like before you found religion.

Bob

_______________________________
From: shawn@bornagainmormon.com
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:39 PM
To: RV
Subject: Re: Tuesday's Show Oct 24, 2006

Stop.

________________________________
From: RV
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:22 PM
To: shawn@bornagainmormon.com
Subject: RE: Tuesday's Show Oct 24, 2006

Engage the issues as you challenge and insist you will. You're the one who came at the Mormons, who call our leaders liars, our testimonies false, our conversions mostly a delusion. I provided a factual, document based response to your false teachings about the Mormons, and you don't have the courtesy to respond in any cogent manner, despite your web page and even your email auto-respond saying you will.

If you are in fact saying "stop" because you will not answer, I will make sure that message gets out. I think it speaks volumes about your "expertise".

If you mean stop because I mention your manipulation of your daughter on television, then I would suggest you not pull your beautiful children into a forum and ask them questions designed to evoke an emotional response.

Since you refused to answer from the first email I sent, I am just curious if you evade all substantive questioning? Where can I find responses to my questions if you don't actually mean you will answer questions emailed to you? Why do you challenge people to respond to the "truths" when you do not actually interact with honest presentations of facts? All of these questions go to the heart of the matter of your actual motives. You can be whatever you want, but don't pretend to be a champion of truth if you refuse to interact with official LDS doctrine in favor of sensationalized opinions.

There is a pithy answer to this:

Integrity.

Peace,
Bob

_________________________________
The response since then is just his auto-response, which as the previous emails all show, is not true:

__________________________________
From: shawn@bornagainmormon.com
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:22 PM
To: RV
Subject: From your friends at Born-Again Mormon

Thank you for writing. I will try my best to answer your email but due to the amount of emails we receive, it may take upwards of four or five days. Please know your comments do matter to us and we will address them as soon as time permits. [Emphasis added to a statement which is false.]

In Christ Jesus,
Shawn McCraney
Born-Again Mormon Ministries

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Born Again without a Desire for Truth

Many people are uninformed about LDS doctrine, including, or maybe especially, ex-Mormons who cite their membership for their authority in matters of doctrine. Don't let their ignorance of actual doctrine deter their zeal to attack their former faith.

I sent an email last night to the owner of Born Again Mormon detailing two serious doctrinal errors he was discussing on his show, Heart of the Matter. I took about 3 hours to gather authoritative quotes, review doctrinal statements and provide them in an orderly and un-insulting manner. I post the entire exchange below, so that you can see the response. Once again, if by their works we shall know the true disciples of Christ, I am glad to live among the Mormons.

I love these responses. They show what truth really means to people. Shawn's comments are particularly funny because his web site invites a thorough discussion of LDS doctrine. You can see what his definition of that is below. By the way, much of the content about the nature of the birth of Jesus I quoted is available at this blog in an earlier posting. There is a fellow obscessed with the subject to whom I responded, and who, I will add, now avoids discussing the issue when I am around. Funny how truth throws water on peoples attack fire. So for complete details, please see below.

Keep the faith.

_________________________
Email 1

From: RV
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006
To: shawn@bornagainmormon.com,
Subject: Tuesday's Show Oct 24, 2006

Your information about the LDS views of the birth of Christ is wrong. I can prove it, I prove it constantly when anti-Mormons bring it up, I have it posted on a website and I have a little brochure on the subject which I personally researched from scratch. The fact you quote statements such as Orson Pratt's to represent LDS doctrine is very disappointing when you so loudly beat your chest on the show about LDS not knowing their own doctrine.

Go to http://www.promormon.blogspot.com/ if you want to get a doctrinally accurate review of the subject. Or just keep doing what you are doing. Maybe someday I can get through onto the air.

One of the funniest lines ever said to me by an anti-Mormon was "Just because you know the scriptures better than me, doesn't mean you are right!" I felt that way watching you brow beat the lady that called in to try to present an LDS perspective. Most LDS do not study their scriptures with an eye toward defending their faith. They read for spiritual food. They don't read to prove anyone else wrong, so most are at a significant disadvantage when they encounter people crusading to crush their faith. And then the person attacking their faith feels superior because their victim cannot quickly respond. That woman did not call in to pick a fight, but to try to help explain the LDS position. How long would you have left her on had she responded to every one of your attacks with Biblical passages?

By the way, bring the "Adam Fell Upward" statements. Let's make sure we read the entire context. Since this world is equivalent to the Telestial Kingdom, and Adam fell from the equivalent of the Terrestial Kingdom, this will be interesting to see you make the case that Mormons believe this life is a better existence than where Adam and Eve left. Yes, we exist. No, this is not a nicer place. Context matters, which you seem to generally ignore in LDS beliefs. Ironically, there is far, far less consistency of beliefs in "the Body of Christ" as you define it, yet you unfairly ignore those differences. The ridcu [sic]

N.L. Nelson, Improvement Era, May, 1922:"...we should realize without the need of scriptural assurance, the fact that Adam fell, that we are all fallen. No fact could possibly be more emphatic than this. Let us next proceed to examine this "fall" in terms of the essential attributes of matter. Summed up we shall find that it means a kind of imprisonment; and that salvation means fighting our way outward and upward to freedom."

Hyrum L. Andrus, Doctrinal Commentary on the pearl of Great Price, page 266-7 "Second, he [Adam] fell from that glorious state and thereby suffered a spiritual death-a withdrawal of the divine powers of God's glory from himself and the earth.

Moses 6:48 48 And he said unto them: Because that Adam fell, we are; and by his fall came death; and we are made partakers of misery and woe.

Elder Russell M. Nelson, Constancy amid Change, Ensign (CR), November 1993, p.33 While I do not fully understand all the biochemistry involved, I do know that their physical bodies did change; blood began to circulate in their bodies. Adam and Eve thereby became mortal. Happily for us, they could also beget children and fulfill the purposes for which the world was created. Happily for them, “the Lord said unto Adam [and Eve26]: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden” (Moses 6:53). We and all mankind are forever blessed because of Eve’s great courage and wisdom. By partaking of the fruit first, she did what needed to be done. Adam was wise enough to do likewise. Accordingly, we could speak of the fall of Adam in terms of a mortal creation, because “Adam fell that men might be” (2 Ne. 2:25).27

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “The Great Plan of Happiness”, Ensign (CR), November 1993, p.72 It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same. And thus Eve and “Adam fell that men might be” (2 Ne. 2:25).

Elder Orson F. Whitney., Conference Report, April 1908, Outdoor Meeting., p.87 By the transgression of our first parents, the human race fell into a pit, and there was no help, and no hope, this side of heaven, for the race could not redeem itself. Man cannot be honest enough, nor virtuous enough, nor truthful enough, nor benevolent enough, to save his soul. That is why the Gospel was provided, as a means of salvation, and it had to come from above. No part of that which was under condemnation could be used as the means of redemption. Adam and Eve, with their posterity, were under the curse, and it was the curse of eternal death,-death spiritual, death temporal,-never-ending banishment from the presence of God.But the Son of God came down from the Courts of Glory, and offered Himself as a sacrifice, a ransom. He was not under the curse; He had not fallen; and His life could pay the debt. It could be used as the means of the world's redemption; and it was so used, and thus He became the Author of life and salvation to us all. He was the first fruits of the resurrection, and He declared: "Because I live, ye shall live also."He let down the ladder into the pit, and bade those who desired salvation at His hands, to climb. They were not to plead their own merits, nor rely upon their own strength, but were to use their powers in climbing up by the way that He had provided. The first round of the Gospel ladder is faith in God; the second round is repentance from sin; the third round, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and the fourth round, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The Fall was not an improvement for Adam and Eve; it was a necessary step which was a transgression. They were ordered to reproduce, yet did not. There was time to disobey the "Don't eat the Fruit" commandment, which logically means they must have also had time to fulfill the other commandment, yet could not. So they had to figure out how to keep the greater commandment. It brought about mankind's existence. The proof is Gen. 4:1; Adam knew his wife Eve, and conceived Cain. This is literally their first act after being cast out of the Garden. Are you aware of the symbolism of the fig apron? If they are in the Garden for who knows how long, you are going to call it a coincidence they are given fig aprons and are immediately pregnant? They were naked in the Garden, and reproduction did not occur to them. It required them to become as the gods, knowing good and evil, to be able to reproduce.

Bring on your strong reasons. Your whole assault on the LDS Fall tonight was pretty unfair.

Peace,
BV

___________________
Email 2

From: shawn@bornagainmormon.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006
To: BV Subject:
Re: Tuesday's Show Oct 24, 2006

Spin.

_____________________
Email 3

From: RV
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006
To: shawn@bornagainmormon.com,
Subject: Tuesday's Show Oct 24, 2006

Oh that all complex issues could be solved with a word. I will make sure this response is added to my blog. Truly classic.

Bob

_____________________
Email 4

From: shawn@bornagainmormon.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:14 AM
To: RV
Subject: Re: Tuesday's Show Oct 24, 2006


They can, Bob. The word is Jesus.

_____________________
Email 5

From: RV
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 09:11 AM
To: shawn@bornagainmormon.com
Subject: RE: Tuesday's Show Oct 24, 2006


Pithy, just false.

Like the things you taught last night on the LDS doctrine of the Virgin Birth and the Fall of Adam.

Peter, Paul, James, John and even Jesus must have all missed your memo. Be prepared to give an answer to every man, but in humility and respect. 1.1 million words in the Bible apparently missed the memo too.

False doctrine is to be resisted. The Bereans were blessed for being more studious of the scriptures in reviewing Paul's teachings. In effect, you are saying you should be held to a lower standard of truth than Paul was in his day. I don't care about being right, I care about truth. I have even admitted to my anti-Mormon friends when I have made a mistake. I thought if you really believe truth matters, you would at least be open to examining you may be in error. However, nothing is harder to open than a closed mind, which explains a lot about your apostacy from the LDS Church. I would leave the Church too if I believed all the false things about the Church you insist we do. Your concept of baptism, salvation, the Godhead and the Virgin Birth are all in error, so I understand why you were never converted.

I have dealt with hundreds of addicts over the years, and nothing is scarier than stripping away falsehood and looking honestly. I am not saying you are an addict, but I am saying you live in a world where the falsehoods you preach seem to be feeding your zeal. You have a zeal, it is just not after knowledge, which is what I was trying to say. Your scholarship on baptism and God as a spirit are particularly poor, and the only reason you could take those kinds of positions is if you really don't care about reading the Bible with understanding. Any current Greek grammar would nullify your position, yet I heard you again repeat the false statement that John 4:24 says god is a spirit. It doesn't. It's a mistranslation (which you asked the LDS lady for an example last night) which NO modern translation supports, even those based on the King James Bible's Greek text. So why do you keep citing it? A skeptic of your motives might think it is because it is in the King James Bible which Mormons use, and they would not know to appeal to a correct translation. I don't know your real reason. But truth cannot live with deceit.

Does truth matter?

Bob

_________________________
Email 6

From: shawn@bornagainmormon.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:57 PM
To: RV
Subject: Re: Tuesday's Show Oct 24, 2006


Boring.

________________________
Email 7

From: RV
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:27 AM
To: shawn@bornagainmormon.com
Subject: RE: Tuesday's Show Oct 24, 2006

Facts may be boring, but pithy, factless responses are both useless and hypocritical coming from the man stating as his mission: "We ... seek to confront and help remove any doctrines which demand anything more than faith in Jesus Christ for salvation."

I guess that doesn't apply when your assertions are demonstrably false. It is boring when self-appointed experts repeatedly misrepresent LDS doctrine. I much prefer missionary work to apologetics. The Lord commanded Joseph Smith in D&C 71 to confront the enemies of the Church who mislead non-LDS. The revelation concerned an apostate member who published a mix of truth and falsehood. Sound familiar?

Enjoy your pithy party.

Bob

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.

Friday, July 21, 2006

Confronting Confrontationalists

Confrontational Evangelism is the non-Biblical prideful justification for being a graceless goof.

You can see it in the street preachers fellowship, Rob Sivulka and many other people "with a burden to preach the Gospel" as rudely as possible.

Rob Sivulka, for example, has a video where he justifies his 'Gospel-free' technique of offending as many LDS people as possible. During the course of the video, he makes two particularly insightful comments which are totally lost on himself. He reads verses in Matthew and Mark about Christ attacking the Pharisees. It is completely lost on Rob that the Pharisees were in the Church of the day, the Jewish faith tradition. Christ attacked them for their hypocrisy in not caring to follow the teachings they taught.

Rob, on the other hand, attacks people he believes are not within the faith, and who sincerely believe and practise their faith. There is not a single example of Christ verbally assaulting anyone sincerely seeking to follow the truth. The woman at the well. Thomas. Zachias. He supped with sinners and tax collectors. Do you really think he sat there screaming? Even the gentile mother seeking help for her child he gently tried to turn away, and then granted her the request of her petition.

Paul and Peter likewise spoke lovingly, respectfully to sincere non-Christians and Jews. There was only sharpness for hypocritical Jews and Christians, who should have known better. The mayor of Ephesus notes that Paul never blasphemed their pagan gods (Acts 19:37), something Rob chooses to violate with virtually every breath and website, if in fact he believes Mormons worship false gods.

Lastly, Rob quotes Cecil B. DeMille, the famous director, who noted that panzy preachers did not emulate Jesus. Demille, quoted by Rob, notes Christ only attacked hypocrits "who made a travesty of his father's temple". That means false sheep entering the Lord's house and profiting from it.

Mormons and LDS missionaries and leaders are explicitly not to create an ecumenical relationship with other faiths. Mormons don't join councils of Churches where issues of faith are compromised. We never enter a non-LDS church building or congregation under any false pretense, as if we are not working to convert them.

It is enlightening to hear Rob's stories of people who have come out of Mormonism. I have corresponded with several of those people. They are largely ignorant or bitter for social reasons.

I hope Rob keeps up the confrontational method. It makes the difference so clear, that only the weak-minded and uneducated fall for his lies. I know of examples when ex-Mormons learn the Truth, they return to the faith. Wouldn't it be cool if he posted those messages.

Rob has a long history of avoiding actual intellectual exchanges where something more than an "everybody knows" suffices for documentation. I believe he demonstrates a pyschological need to feel like a victim. He loves feeling persecuted. He notes he revels in having people yell as they drive by "get a job" or "shame on you". Another typical example of Rob's bankrupt reasoning. People in cars who comment, while Rob is usually yelling at Mormon passers-by, probably will not be heard using their chapel voices, will they? Now they should probably not say anything, but considering Rob confronts several hundred thousand LDS people each year, why is it surprising that newcomers to the faith may feel a need to respond. At least they did not follow Peter's example and try to cut off his ear. I have spoken with Rob numerous times, and he literally collapses under the weight of his false sources and poorly researched and poorly reasoned positions. I fear this sounds boastful, but it is also true. Ask him why he says Mormons won't literally interpret Acts 7:55-56? I have a great picture of him SCREAMING at the top of his lungs, calling me a liar, when confronted with actual false statements from his own web site.

Most Mormons don't get a background in Bible history, linguistics, or comparative religion. Mormons don't attack other faiths, and Rob counts on that ignorance. He noted that he would not continue discussing the LDS faith with me because I would eventually resort (because I never had) to comfort in my testimony, rather than arguing the facts. This from a guy who never once quoted an entire verse of scripture and explained its context. IN fact, up to a few years ago, on his entire website I counted only two or three verses of scripture quoted. He normally says something like "the Bible teaches (verse whatever)", never actually quoting the verse. Scripture and scholarship is poison to anti-Mormons. Arguing from the scriptures, Mormonism never can lose. Arguing from "everyone knows" allows falsehood to reign supreme.

To some, this may seem confrontational. It is intended to be analytical. Sometimes it takes more than a slogan to actually address falsehood, so please understand the need to provide supporting examples.

Monday, April 03, 2006

April 2006 Conference Review

There were many great speakers, but probably 3 anti-Mormon events I wish to touch on.
1. I spoke with a lot of "King James Only" adherents. In a word: Lost souls. They have been pumped full of bad facts and crippled logic. In effect, they believe that magically (no really!), the King James Translators made the perfect translation of scripture. All scripture. Nothing is left out, nothing to be added. No contradictions are in it either. So I provided them an absolutely unresolveable contradiction: 2 kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9. The King Jehoiachin is 18 years old when he becomes king in one version, 8 years old in the other. They are otherwise perfectly parallel accounts. It is obviously a scribal error in 2 Chronicles. No matter, one error is an error, and it means their doctrine is false. I have about 100 others, but it makes the point. (On a side note, one of the young people I spoke with actually said that the King James Bible should be translated into other languages, rather than the best Greek texts in use OR even the original texts used by the King James translators. Everyone scratch your heads.)

2. I had the chance to meet with a man who was truly mentally ill. Now, before too many jokes fly, in some ways we all are a little unique. In fact, I think based on the irrational indifference for the teachings of Christ by most street preachers, a case can be made a lot of those guys are suffering in some form of delirium. But this poor fellow was genuinely mentally ill, and just could not control his anger or aggitation. But for the grace of God, there go I. The cool thing, in my view, is that I suspect he falls into the same category in the after-life as little children who are unaccountable. He is just not able to help himself.

3. Just as I was leaving, I ran into Aaron and Stacia. Aaron is a likeable follower of reformed theology who fancies himself a missionary to Mormons. His beautiful wife is about 5 months pregnant with their first child. They had brought her parents down to see Temple Square, and they stopped to ask me some questions. Stacia's mom, whose name I cannot recall, was very nice, but she became progressively more animated and wound up just walking away because she felt I was telling her blasphemous doctrines out of the Bible. Here is the irony. They had asked me, after bouncing quickly along such topics as baptism for the dead, proper worship of God and Christ, the New Testament basis for Spirit Prison and Paradise, can salvation occur strictly through faith or is obedience necessary, and what role the Trinity has or has not in the New Testament; all in about 15 minutes, she then said "I understand your faith teaches that Christ and Satan are considered siblings of some kind". So I said yes, this is what the Bible teaches, but before we get into that, this will take longer than 1 minute to resolve, so are you willing to spend the time. She pressed that she wanted to know, and said she could not believe any such thing. I asked her if Jesus himself had a spirit. She replied that he had the Holy Spirit, which he shared with the Father and the Holy Ghost.

Here is where I made my mistake. I should have done this in a Socratic style, and simply pointed out scriptures and asked questions. I won't make this mistake ever again. But instead I told her that while Christ shared in the Holy Spirit, he had his own Spirit. She literally lost it at this point, telling me this was blasphemy and unscriptural and she was going to walk away. I told her it was in fact in the scriptures, and if she cared to see the verses, I would be happy to provide them. Having confounded Ron McRae the day before on this exact topic (he is the director of the Street Preachers Fellowship, the unChristian sign toting protest group), I was certain I could make the Biblical case. But I mis-judged how upset this nice lady would get at having some of her basic beliefs confronted by the truth of scripture. Big, prideful mistake on my part.

At this point she walked away. Her husband politely said thank you, shook my hand, and dutifully followed his wife, as I would have mine.

Here is the problem for her as a Trinitarian Christian. Her statements put her right in the category of defined heretic according to Traditional Christian theology. Her expression is a modified Modalist. The Father is the Son is the Holy Spirit. In this case, the Son is the Holy Spirit shared by the Father. Worse still, though she clearly had just recently read John 14, as she cited it several times, she professed to be unfamiliar with Christ's admonition that we must endure to the end to be saved (Matt 24:13; Mark 13:13). Every Gospel account indicates Christ has his own spirit, separate and apart from the Holy Spirit (Matt 3:16; 4:1; 12:18; 12:32; 27:50; Mark 1:10; 8:12; 15:37; Luke 3:22; Luke 4:1; 4:14; 4:18; 10:21; 12:10; 23:46; John 1:32; 1:33; 7:39; 11:33; 13:21; 14:26; 15:26; 19:30; Acts 4:8 shows the Apostles were indwelt with the Holy Spirit just as Christ was during His life.)

So, Stacia's Mom, you are just wrong. You were so sure you were right, and I was just up in the night. Hopefully you will someday be humble enough to let the missionaries walk you through the Gospel. There are answers to literally everything you asked, but I was stupid to think I could walk you through the scriptures in a public environment, and have the Spirit teach you while Aaron is doing drive-by insults of LDS doctrine. Again, I apologize, and I won't do that again.

Stacia's mom and dad both asked a question which I don't think they fully understand. They said "Can we be saved even if we never join the Mormon Church?" I told them it is really a non-issue, because we do the work for all people, so everyone will have the chance. But this is really the wrong answer. The right answer is much more sober: If this is the Church of Jesus Christ restored in our day, rejecting God's prophets, his ordinances and his inspired council, if such attitudes are taken into the next life, can only lead to something less than ultimate salvation. You cannot reject Isaiah, Moses or Peter, and say you believe in Jesus Christ. As it says in modern day revelation: "Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." (D&C 1:38) This is no different than what Moses said 3,000 years ago:

Deut 30:2
2 And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul;

Without an open mind, it is impossible to hear the Lord's voice.

See you around.