Thursday, January 29, 2009

Mormon Coffee Closes Discussion on Free Speech with Mormons

This is a weird thing for me. I had responded to a post about Mormons and Evangelicals debating, and how I find Evangelicals who "reach out" to Mormons are usually unBiblical in their approach, and are generally unChristian as well. I accidentally addressed it to Aaron Shafovaloff, when it should have been directed to Sharon Lindbloom, both of Mormon Research Ministry (MRM). If you like, you can see the exchange here.

What's weird is that I only posted once, and wanted to apologize for mislabeling to whom my remarks should have been directed. Instead, after deflecting the substance of my comments by demonstrating precisely my point which was: Aaron doesn't preach what he believes, but tries to contrast what he believes against what he says Mormons believe; They then discontinued further comments.

The truth is Aarons characterizations of LDS doctrine are precisely at issue here. He has notions about LDS doctrine around forgiveness of sin (You must be perfect in your behavior, says Aaron, or else LDS leaders say you will go hell), perceptions of scripture (Mormons don't really believe the Bible so much as tolerate it as an unauthoritative trick play), and my personal spirituality (he knows I am not born again through some means, which allows him to therefore consider me a target for his form of preaching), all leads him to ignore the Bible's message on proselyting: Gentle, respectful, and go away if they don't want to speak to you.

Instead, I got this response:
And I [Aaron] don’t share the notion that any public criticism of Mormonism in street preaching is automatically uncivil or disrespectful. It’s part of the task of calling you to repentance. You don’t like that, and it seems you never will until you are born again, and until then you’ll keep defining “civility” and “respect” as that which excludes public, heralding criticism and calls to repentance.
I of course never said ANY public criticism of Mormonism is uncivil. In fact, I cited two people who are decidedly NOT in favor of Mormonism as examples of how to act consistent with the Bible.

Moreover, I don't have a problem responding to a call to repent. Since Aaron presumes to know my heart, he feels equally confident expounding upon my sins and pride. The point is not his "right" to call me or anyone to repent. He has that right. The point is the way he does it is not scriptural for post-crucifixtion Christians.

Which brings me to Sharon. Apparently they decided that discussing Evangelical and Mormon proselyting styles was not a topic they wished to continue receiving comments on. Sharon made a response, essentially saying that Acts 17-19 and 2 Tim 2:23-25 supported their behavior at MRM, and then they turned comments off. So let me respond here, at some considerable depth (sorry for those of you rolling your eyes in the "here goes dad again" fashion).

I don't know what you see in Acts 17-19 that you find supports public attacks on other faiths by Christians, better known as "Confrontational Evangelism" among its advocates. I have written on the subject before, but you drove me to dig to try to find if I had missed something by the confident manner you through out these chapters to support such abuse of liberty. So I have written a comprehensive list of every missionary opportunity contained in those three chapters, which I will attach below. To say the least, I am still scratching my head. Where do you find even a single incident to support the idea that going to people who don't want to talk with you, or attacking the faith of others, is present anywhere in these passages? The words 'repent' and 'repentance' each occur only once in these three chapters, and they are done in speeches NOT addressed to any particular person (see 17:30 and 19:4) or even the people as a whole standing presently in the crowds. Indirectly, yes, but not so someone would take particular notice of an attack on their faith. Instead, in the 13 missionary vignettes contained in those three chapters, we find Paul leaving EVERY TIME he engages people who resist him. Not just "usually", but every single time. In fact, Paul taught publicly for 2 years during this period in an open lecture hall where only people came who wanted to learn about Christianity.

As I note in example 13, after 3 years of living in Ephesus, the people who accused Paul of attacking their belief in idols were unable to produce a single witness to testify of Paul attacking the goddess Diana. NOT ONE. Yet we have Aaron proudly describing his contrasting method using wrongly contextualized passages from Isaiah to show how he is fine describing his faith in terms of what the LDS faith is not. This is the very opposite of what you claim is contained in these three chapters. Now for the list:
1. Acts 17:1-9 Paul’s preaching is exclusively about Jesus, nothing noted about attacking the Jews or anyone else.

2. Acts 17:10-15 Famous Berean Jews. But they welcomed Paul. And he teaches Jesus, not that they are stupid.

3. Acts 17:16-18 Paul is said to argue with Jews and others in public. But what does verse 18 say he proclaims? Polytheism, since he described Jesus being resurrected and the Gospel. He does not say anything against their beliefs. In fact, Paul obviously says nothing about their beliefs at all, since they interpreted his teaching through the lens of their understanding of the gods.

4. Acts 17:19-34 Famous Mars Hill, where Paul was invited to speak, (did you notice that Sharon?) and he proclaims the “Unknown God”, Jesus Christ. His message is the Gospel and the resurrection. His recorded proclamation to repent (vs.30), to those in the audience who invited him to speak, is in no way directed as a personal attack or even an intrusion at their event. He was, after all, the invited speaker, not just a self-appointed proclaimer.

5. Acts 18:1-7 Paul goes to Corinth, and argues with the Jews in the synagogue that Jesus is the Christ. He stops when they become completely unwilling to listen, and vows to never go back to teaching them. In other words, if they don’t want him, he doesn’t go to them.

6. Acts 18:7-17 Paul teaches many converts. Acts does not ascribe any particular message of what Paul is preaching, but the Jews say he is persuading people to worship God in ways not prescribed in the Law. So his message did not attack the Law or Jews, but advocated a belief outside of the Jews understanding.

7. Acts 18:18-21 Paul goes to Ephesus, and is, again, INVITED to speak in the synagogue. In fact, they want him to stay longer.

8. Acts 18:22-23 Paul travels to Caesarea, Jerusalem, Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening the members of the Church. In fact, in his letters back to those regions, there is no indication that he attacks any other faith. He simply teaches Jesus and the Gospel.

9. Acts 18:24-28 Apollos, having only been imperfectly taught the Way of God, Paul’s friends Priscilla and Aquila hear him launching on the Jews, and take him aside to correct his understanding. Guess what? He then only refutes Jewish misunderstanding by demonstrating Jesus is the Messiah from the scriptures.

10. Acts 19:1-7 Paul teaches some folks who thought they had joined the Church that they didn’t have it correct, and taught them about Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

11. Acts 19:8-10 Paul speaks and argues persuasively in the synagogue in Ephesus. When they stubbornly refused to believe him, he leaves. He then holds discussions (yes, that is the word in the NIV) in a lecture hall where people interested could come and hear. This was in the fashion of modern college instruction settings where a professor could lecture and respond to inquiries from those in attendance. Not a "drive by" confrontational preaching setting, but those interested could come.

12. Acts 19:11-20 A vignette is inserted to show the power of God. Paul blesses handkerchiefs, which are then taken to the sick, and they are healed. The incident of the sons of Sceva is told, as well as the conversion of many as a result of hearing of this powerful story. I like how the devils laugh at the sons' lame attempt to use the name of Jesus.

13. Acts 19:21-41 Perhaps the single clearest example that Paul NEVER teaches against other faiths. This is where pagan silversmiths realize the huge impact on their business as Paul racks up thousands of Christian converts. So they riot, claiming Paul and his group are teaching that “gods made with hands are not gods” (vs. 26, NRSV). They dragged two of Paul’s traveling companions to the theater, and there the town clerk sets the record straight. He disbands the crowd by telling them that in fact Paul and his people “are neither temple robbers nor blasphemers of our goddess,”(vs 37, NRSV) and says they must bring charges in court or risk punishment for disorderly conduct. The bottom line: After 3 years of living in Ephesus, they could not find a single witness who could say that Paul had ever said anything against the local goddess, Diana/Artemis. Think about that. He taught in an open lecture hall for two years to anyone who would walk in, and they could not find a single witness to confirm he had taught against any specific belief. He had only taught Jesus.

You also seem to totally miss what Paul is instructing Timothy in 2 Tim 2:23-26. First of all, you don't seem to want to accept what verse 23 is saying: Don't engage in strife. Next, Paul tells them to avoid arguing and verbally fighting. "A slave of the Lord ought not to fight" (Literal Greek translation) seems pretty obvious. But the word "fight" means to battle, as in at least two soldiers facing off against each other, and in Biblical usage means to engage in "fighting, quarrels, strife, disputes" (BDAG, page 622, entry "mache"). Paul uses the verb form of mache from verse 23 in his next statement quoted above in verse 24, commanding Timothy "not to fight".

You also seem to miss the obvious lesson from Acts 17-19 captured in 2 Tim 2. Timothy was with Paul at Mars Hill and most all of the 13 incidents contained in the 3 chapters you cite vainly for support. Timothy knows what Paul means by contending for the faith. He is with Paul almost constantly for the rest of Paul's life, starting in Derbe in Acts 16:1. Aside from two letters addressed to him, Paul cites Timothy as being with him in 8 of his letters (Romans, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thess, 2 Thess, Philemon). He is even mentioned in Hebrews. That leaves just 3 letters composed by Paul where Timothy is not explicitly mentioned as being with Paul; Galations, Ephesians and Titus.

Timothy knows that when Paul says "not to fight/quarrel", he means don't attack another man's faith. In fact, when Paul says to avoid entertaining foolish disputes and to respond patiently, Timothy knows Paul means to keep teaching the Gospel. Because he saw that, and that is the language Paul uses. He doesn't say "Draw contrasts between the truth of our faith with the lies of others to provoke arguments." NO. He says the exact opposite: "Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments because you know they produce quarrels...Those who oppose [God's bond servant] he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of truth."

Paul notes to the Corinthians that he was sent "not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." (1 Cor 1:17). So that complicated, compare and contrast style Aaron believes is correct is not how Paul did it, since it negated the Cross. But Maybe Aaron is more powerful, learned or insightful than Paul, and need not follow his example. It could happen. Sure it could.

Every time Paul talks about preaching, 100% of the time the message is about Jesus and the Gospel, and never is preaching intended to start a debate about the other person's faith. It is always a debate about Jesus. Talking about Joseph Smith is exactly the kind of satanic preaching Paul describes as foolishness. If you really believe we have the wrong system of beliefs, tell us about yours. That is the Biblical model.

This is another case where I believe people such as MRM simply indulge their personal lust for argument, and ignore the plain teaching of the Bible through self-serving filtering of the words of scripture. It is literally inconceivable that Paul, who ALWAYS walks away from religious strife if his presence is not wanted or if he cannot stick to preaching the Gospel and Jesus, and has had Timothy at his side for most of the years of this example, right from the verses you mistakenly cite, and he commands Timothy "not to fight/quarrel" over silly questions; to repeat, it is inconceivable to any rational reading of Paul's letter to think he is giving his OK to confrontational evangelism or seeking out people to offend the masses through holding of signs with offensive slogans, even if you think the slogan is true. Remember, three years of teaching among pagan worshippers of Diana, and not a single instance of him negatively commenting about the prevailing religion. And we have this of his interaction in the Jewish synagogue's and the temple:

Acts 24:12 And they neither found me [Paul] in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city:

Timothy was there with Paul in Ephesus for nearly all of the three years as near as we can tell. He was with Paul in Jerusalem when Paul is defending himself. Is Paul lying in front of those with whom he has travelled for years? If so, then Paul is lying for the Lord, right?

MRM, in my opinion, simply doesn't understand scripture. Which is why MRM is unqualified to call me or anyone else to repentance: They don't know what to repent from or change to. False teachers, however, will call night day, and try to lead from the light to the dark. Thus it is easy to show from MRM's representatives' statements alone that they are the ones who have "another Gospel", even without determining the truth of Mormonism. You can't teach falsehoods about scripture and have any spiritual authority.

That is what I wanted to say, if they had not turned the comments off on their article about the free exchange of ideas between Mormons and Evangelicals. Funny, huh, that they accuse the Mormons of being thin skinned about criticism, but they turn the comments off when the discussion swings against them. Hmm. What do we call that when we assume we don't have to live by the standards we demand from others?


Sunday, January 25, 2009

Mormons Have Another Jesus: The Biblical One

I am going to take the suggestion of one of those who recently commented to address the topic of the accusation that Mormons have another Jesus, different from traditional Christian faiths.

President Hinckley noted that we as Mormons DO have a different Jesus than Traditional Christianity. (June 20, 1998 Desseret News)

His point is the real Jesus is not revealed in the creeds or dogmas of Christianity. The real Jesus revealed Himself to Joseph Smith at the beginning of this dispensation. This is consistent with the Biblical teaching that "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." (1Cor 12:3) He is not known or discovered in the Bible or through pious reflection. He is only known via revelation.

Depending upon the attitude of the person I am talking with, I will measure the way I basically tell them they have the unBiblical Jesus, and I am OK having "another Jesus", as long as mine is the one described in the Bible.

When the Bible writes John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent," I am hard pressed to reconcile the traditional Trinitarian beliefs that Jesus is also that one True God. When Stephen says "I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God,"(Acts 7:56), I cannot find a logical way to reconcile the fact that Jesus is specifically said to NOT be God, so how can he be the Trinitarian God? It is logically impossible for a thing to be next to itself. If it were possible, then we could play the games like asking if God can create a rock to heavy to lift, or if there is a number too high for him to count to.

At the end of the day, Mormons believe in the Jesus of the Bible without any modifications of who that person is. We also believe he continues to communicate with man. If a Trinitarian is honest in a conversation, they will have to admit that their beliefs are not the obvious product of scripture, and history tell us that up until the 4th Century, believers were not necessarily those who held a Trinitarian point of view. Though Trinitarians like to say their beliefs are the logical conclusions drawn from the evidence of scripture, without a Trinitarian point of view one would never formulate such a conclusion. Philosophy outside of the Bible created Trinitarian insights into the Bible. I am specifically a Christian because I believe in every explicit aspect of the Nature of Jesus as taught in the Bible. He is the literal son of God. He is my one and only Savior. He is divine, and yet wholly separate from God the Father. There is one God the Father. Jesus Christ is Lord and son of God. These points do not require a belief in the Trinity to believe the words penned in scripture.

So I contend they made "another Jesus", and I follow the one we learn of in the Bible.

Friday, January 23, 2009


I would be interested in going into topics the regular readers of this blog might be curious about. I have been trying to focus, as always, on active anti-Mormon issues being kicked around and their doctrinal implications. I will continue that vein if I no one has a specific topic. But I wanted to be sure those who may have issues come up who want a less nuanced or poised response from me have a chance to ask.

Let me know, or point me at issues you would like to have commented upon.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Shawn McCraney and Adam's Road Deadend for Ex-Mo's

Tuesday I watched Shawn McCraney on his program, Heart of the Matter. He had on the show Lynn Wilder, mother of Adam's Road band member Micah Wilder. She is a former BYU professor of special education, and left the LDS Church about a year ago. She was on with two other ex-LDS, Stephan, who had known Micah Wilder while also serving in the Orlando LDS Mission, and his wife Sarah. Both by all appearances were at one point very strong LDS. But I want to make some observations about the illogic of all three of their positions.

First, I think it should be pointed out that people leave the LDS Church all the time for many reasons. Mostly for lack of interest. Some because of fear of dealing with sin, some because they have been offended. (Side note: Lynn Wilder laughed that she was constantly asked what sin she had committed or who had offended her, saying she was too old to commit big sins. Since these are far more likely reasons to leave the Church than over doctrinal issues, I can understand why she is asked about it, even if she thinks it is odd.) Somewhere way down on the list of reasons is over doctrine.

Doctrine is a funny thing. Most find it AFTER they decide something is wrong. Stephan noted he always felt confession of serious sins to a bishop seemed wrong to him. When he heard about Micah Wilder and others leaving the Church, because that seed existed, he then pursued his study of the New Testament (NT). So he already felt there was a problem, not knowing then, or apparently now, that confession to a church leader IS based on NT doctrine:
16 Confess [your] faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.James 5:16

In fact, Lynn and Stephan and Sarah all exhibited their continued NON-Evangelical beliefs in various statements throughout the show. They simply seem to sweep their differences under the rug, I would guess because they refuse to acknowledge that their "New Faith" has many more holes in it than the LDS beliefs they left, when both are compared to the NT.

A caller asked if her LDS family were going to hell for not having left the LDS Church, even though they talk of Jesus and do so many good things with such a good spirit. Stephan said "No", that they could still be saved according to the NT even after the resurrection, that God does not throw away people. Then the caller said "but Mormons have another Jesus, and the Bible says only he is the way to heaven". At this point Shawn stepped in and said if they have the wrong Jesus, as the Mormons do, they cannot be saved. Sarah said that if good deeds were enough, there would be no need for a savior. Do these two realize they contradict each other? Does Stephan realize no Evangelical theologian of any prominence agrees that this position clearly exists in the Bible? Shawn McCraney constantly talks of how Romans tells us that nature testifies of God, and God will find those who love him, but then he says that if that is the case, they must receive Christ in this life. And all of them seem to ignore Hebrews 9:27
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
As a Mormon, I find the NT does support the teaching of the Gospel to the dead, and their potential salvation (Jn 5:28-29; 1Pet 3:19-20; 1 Peter 4:5-6: Note in Peter the word "dead" is translated from the Greek "Nekros", meaning a dead body. Translators used the word "dead" in 1 Pet 2:24 for a different Greek word which means to be apart or removed or to die too something, but when Peter uses Nekros, he means a person whose body is physically dead, as in 1 Peter 4:5-6: 1 Cor 15:29.). But IF we must be repent and be baptized to be saved (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 2 Cor 7:10; 1 Pet 3:21);

IF salvation is only offered to those who have exercised faith and obey the commandments:

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? (Read all of Romans 6, if there is any doubt that Paul teaches obediently following doctrine is essential to being made righteous and obtaining salvation.)
Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, [Christ] became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
1 Pet 1:22 have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit...
Gal 5:4, 7 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?

And IF the Bible teaches that ultimate salvation is to become like God:

Gen 1:26-27 26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen 3:22 ¶ And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:
Ps 8:4-6 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
Rom 8:17 ¶ And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
Rom 8:29 ¶ For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
1 Cor 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
2 Pet 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
1 Jn 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
THEN I guess those Mormon NT writers were confused, inserting all this LDS gunk into the NT.

Bringing me to the last point. Stephan made a point of saying that temples and prophets were unnecessary. Again, such comments make me wonder if he just read the tract from his Adam's Road dudes, or if he actually read the NT. Anti's love to point to Hebrews 1:1-2 as their proof text that Jesus was the last prophet. Because of this silliness, I long ago wrote a brochure on the subject to cite the numerous instances of NT prophets leading the Church AFTER Christ. Agabus comes to mind. Barnabus (Acts 13:1) comes to mind, too, also showing their critical role in continuing to lead the Church, even if they don't have ANY separate books or revelations attributed to them. See Acts 15:32; 11:27; 21:10; Eph 3:5; Eph 4:11. And read Revelation 11. Two prophets are going to show up, be killed, lay dead in the street, and come back to life. You will be on the wrong side of God if you really believe new prophets are unnecessary.

If temples are unnecessary, why did Christ say he would come to his suddenly? Why did the Apostles, including Paul, continue to worship at the Temple of Jerusalem AFTER Christ's resurrection?

You ex-mo's really need to do more research and questioning before changing out your faith for a brochure. This is serious stuff, not just a new T-shirt that helps you feel less guilty because you don't have to confront your sin with shame and sorrow. Send me an email. We can talk. Or go to and research your questions or submit them to the ask a question service. There are answers. Thus we see for every person leaving the Church over a doctrinal issue, 100 join the Church for the same reason.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Shawn McCraney (or is that McCranky?) Born Again Mormon History

What if I told you history which consisted of a couple of facts and tons of conjecture? What if I ignored the best non-Christian and Christian historians and simply pushed the discredited history of ex-Christian cranks. To opponents of Christianity, no big deal, any message is better than none. To Christians, it is to be expected, but would still be saddening and frustrating.

So goes this years series by Shawn McCraney on LDS history. I have watched portions of several of his shows. As usual, his ultimate source of LDS historical reality is the discredited postulations of critics and the outright hostile to LDS history.

Last week he picked an obscure dude's explanation of how mass movements are created and sustained, Eric Hoffer. McCraney failed to note that Hoffer is never to have known to have commented on Mormonism. Instead, he targeted the mindset of Nazi Germany and Stalin. And, oh yes, Paul of Tarsus, who persecuted Christians then became an ardent evangelist thereof. McCraney noted the three types of leaders of new movements posited by Hoffer, were "The Men of Words", "Fanatics", and "Men of Action".

Shawn McCraney now calls Brigham Young a "Fanatic" under terms of this definition. This is because he sees Joseph Smith as the "Man of Words", and current leaders as the "Men of Action". This assumes Joseph Smith made up the things he ascribed to revelation. It would also assume Joseph Smith did not lead people.

Worse, Joseph Smith taught that people needed to become their own leaders, using their own agency, and Brigham Young reinforced this. The LDS Church from its beginning has argued that it is essential that each person obtain their own witness, and not blindly follow.

McCraney says that all mass movements have fanatics which takes up growth. Once a sustainable size is acheived, then the "Men of Action" establish non-radical channels.

McCraney says Fanatics took over the LDS Church after Carthage. The fanatic mentality took over. The problem is that Brigham Young, prior to Mormonism, shows now tendancy to fanaticism.

He asserted that with the death of David O. McCay, the leadership of Fanaticism changed. He simply conveniently ignores the actions of LDS leaders. President Kimball would not have done anything radical, under this theory. So changing rules about blacks holding the priesthood would never happen. But it did. McCraney says this is typical of Men of Action. Huh? Changing 130+ years of doctrine fits this pattern? Only if you ignore history.

Building over 100+ temples fits this pattern? No.

Men of Action, according to McCraney, are simply managers. Wow.

Simply speaking, McCraney is simply trying to put a crackpot view of LDS progression using a theory which is more indicative of "another shiny object". LDS history, let alone its leaders, do not fit this theory. The LDS leaders do not choose leadership as a career. They choose their faith, and at times are called to lead. McCraney cannot see that the LDS Church teaches individuality and structure exactly as Christ taught. Jesus taught there is a Church (Matt 16:18). Paul and Peter and John taught there was a structured organization called the Church. Yet McCraney, like most evangelicals, ignore the clear teaching of scripture to follow their hobbies. Which is why Paul and Jesus both made it clear that the choice to preach is not by those who want to make a career out of it, but by those called upon to teach:

Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent?

Luke 8:38 Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying,
39 Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him.

Once again we see Shawn McCraney trying to stuff the well rounded LDS Church into the Triangle he has come up with to justify an intellectual approach.

I will discuss his response to Bob (Not Me) on the call where he mocked the fact Bob was led, according to the Biblical model, by following the Spirit preaching to him. His assertions of the LDS Church teaching the exact opposite of the Bible will also be addressed. He just doesn't know what he is talking about, but, as noted before, he is afraid to have Mormons on the show to demonstrate from the Bible why they are in fact Biblical.

More later.