Anti Anti-Mormons

Theology Driven Intentional Ignorance and James 5:19-20

2011-09-24T09:21:00.000-07:00

I was speaking with several non-LDS Christians in downtown Salt Lake City who were attacking the LDS view that a person can lose their salvation. It happens when one intentionally walks away from their covenants, and decides to lead a life without God. Dallin Oaks gave a wonderful talk in 1998 entitled "Have You Been Saved?" which perfectly explains the LDS position, and compares it to the Born Again Christian perspective.

There are practically an endless number of verses which could be cited to show this is possible (Gal 5:4; Hebrews 10:26; 1 Tim 6:9-10).

I however discussed just one passage with these folks: James 5:19-20

¹⁹Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him;
²⁰Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Oh my gosh, the gyrations people make to avoid the plain meaning of these two verses, it was fun to watch.

First, the word "err" means to "Wander". Coupled with the preposition "apo", from, in Greek grammar it means to wander from whatever the object of the phrase is, which is the starting point of origin. In this case, it is to wander from the truth to the non-truth.

The effect of wandering from the truth is death, says verse 20. Some commentators actually say this is in reference to a premature physical death! Right. The illogic of such a position is easy to demonstrate. But unless they make that assertion, James is providing explicit refutation of the doctrine of Eternal Security.

James refers to converting the one in "err" as saving a soul or life. Fine. But the word "convert" and "converteth" are both the same Greek word. It means to "turn back". So the context is that turning back one who has left the truth can save their soul/life.

The word "soul" is "psyche", and it can be translated as "life", but with a significant restriction in meaning. It means the vital force or energy which provides animation to our life. It is not the existence we have on earth. (See Bauer, BDAG, pg 1099, definition of "Psyche", number 2.d. which cites the specific verse in James 5:20, "as the seat and center of life that transcends the earthly.") Bauer further states that the "death" mentioned which the psyche suffers is a "2. death viewed transcendently in contrast to a living relationship with God, death extension of meaning 1." It then states: "a. of spiritual death, to which one is subject unless one lives out of the power of God's grace." It then cites James 5:20 by stating, "This death stands in the closest relation to sin: Romans 7:13b; James 1:15; 5:20;..." (bold in the original to set off Biblical verses).

So the position that this could be about a physical death is not sustainable from the text.

As a clincher, I left out one verse. James only uses the word 'psyche' one other time: James 1:21

²¹Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

Notice the exact same context as James 5:19-20. The only consistent and justifiable interpretation of James 1:21 is that the "soul" is "saved" in an ultimate salvation sense. James then ends by charging us with helping to save the souls of those who did first have the truth, but have gone astray.

This is solid, rational and reasonable interpretive reading of scripture. Once-saved, always saved types cannot agree with it because it conflicts with their theological perspective. As the one commentator I cited above who asserted the "death" suffered by those who wandered from the truth was due to living a dangerous life-style, they asserted:

Of course, there are some who suggest that eternal salvation from hell is in view here. That suggestion, however, flies in the face of clear Gospel teaching all through the Bible. The sole condition of eternal salvation is faith in Christ, not moral reformation.
The wanderer who is brought back to the truth avoids premature death (cf. 1 Cor 11:30;1 John 5:16-17).

I will leave it to the reader of this blog to look up the verses cited in supposed support of this view. The interesting issue is dismissing the clear, explicit teaching in James due to interpretive gymnastics base solely on theological pre-suppositions and bad exegesis.

One advantage of engaging critics on the street in a face to face manner is that if they are honest people, and many of them are, they eventually must concede they cannot find support for their "once saved, always saved" view in any plausible workaround of James 5:19-20. So it was. One lady named Diane kept saying that as a Mormon I was putting a burden on people by each of us having to take responsibility for our own salvation by being able to lose our salvation to bad behavior. So I asked her to explain what possible meaning James could have. Her answer: I don't know, but it doesn't mean what you say it does. After which, she left.

Another man simply said "I am not prepared to answer, I don't know."

If one's interpretation of scripture is based on their theology and not the actual meaning of the writings of scripture, whence came their theology?

Mormon doctrine of Grace and personal convenantal relationship with Christ is the only viable explanation for all verses of the Bible. When we discuss doctrine, Mormonism is the only answer because the scriptures are their source of theology.

Theology Trumps Salvation?

2011-09-18T14:16:00.000-07:00

I spent Thursday evening speaking with some anti-Mormons at Temple Square in Salt Lake City. At one point a young fellow said to me that I just needed to accept Jesus and be assured of his Grace, through faith, and I could be saved. I told him I had already done so. He said I had not accepted the idea of only Jesus' grace to save me, and I said that was true, since the Bible and LDS scriptures make it clear that one must do certain things, such as be obedient (Hebres 5:8-9), endure to the end (Matt 10:22; Mark 13:13) and of course be baptized (John 3:5; Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21).

Then he said "But you believe incorrectly about Jesus." I replied "What?" He said that because our theology of how God and Jesus relate to each other, then my understanding is not sufficient for salvation.

I replied that would mean all of the first and second century Christians were also not saved, since I believe what the Bible teaches about Jesus, and not the silly Trinity stuff. I said the early Christians had no idea what the Trinity was about, and if I am lost by his criteria, then so are they. I told him that theology is a luxury unneeded for salvation in the face of the scriptures.

What would you say?

Was there a First Vision?

2011-09-06T20:25:00.000-07:00

Many times it is asserted that there is no contemporary evidence for the First Vision having occurred. But it should not come as a surprise this is not true, as Richard Anderson published a beautiful, insightful and well documented article in BYU Studies in 1969 (9/3(1969):373-404), entitled Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision Through Reminiscences.

There are several things from this article and elsewhere which I will mention.
1. In The Reflector, February 1831, they report a correspondent from 1830 talks about Oliver Cowdery's preaching in Ohio which affirms "Smith had seen God frequently and personally."
2. Edward Stevenson reports he heard, around 1831, Joseph Smith preach about the First Vision.
3. Lucy Mack Smith placed the timing of the First Vision after 1819 religious revivals, but prior to the 1823 death of Alvin. She inserted Joseph Smith's narrative exactly as found in the History of the Church. This means she has the correct timing, and perfectly endorses the timing of the First Vision found within the account itself.

These are obviously all post 1830. Doesn't anyone remember something closer to 1820?

YES!
4. Pomeroy Tucker, a vicious enemy of the LDS faith, was a childhood friend of Joseph Smith and the Smiths' from 1816 when they moved to Palmyra, until he left for work in 1820, returning in 1823. In his 1867 history of Mormonism, he makes numerous statements which affirm something happens in 1820. For example, he notes Joseph Smith, as a "youth", prayed "in the wilderness" and had his first vision. He takes Orson Pratt's pamphlet on the First Vision as the guiding text, but adds several personal recollections to the text. In other words, he accidentally, as an enemy, confirms it.
5. Orsamus Turner, who was another childhood friend of Joseph Smith, left Palmyra in either 1821 or 1822. Among other things, he asserted in later writings there was no foundation to the idea that the Book of Mormon was copied from Spaulding. But more importantly for our discussion, he recalls that Joseph attended a Methodist Camp Meeting down on Vienna Road (1819), and tended to them. When combined with Tucker's statement that Joseph's "blasphemies" about God led him to withdraw from the Methodists around 1820, we have the main points of the First Vision confirmed.

Matt Brown noted that in the 1832 account of the First Vision, written by hand by Joseph Smith, Joseph notes that after God manifest his will do him, the Lord appeared. This account was in Oliver Cowdery's possession when he wrote his 1834 account of the founding of the Church. It seems obvious that the emphasis of Joseph Smith was on the restoration of the true church of God, not his personal vision. We see something akin to this in Paul's writings. Though we have three accounts of Jesus appearing to Paul, none of them are told to us by Paul. They are reported by Luke in Acts, not in Paul's letters. Paul focuses on doctrine and Church government. He obviously told his story at least twice, based on Luke's account in Acts. He surely told it more than that, as he is recognized by the Church as an Apostle. But Paul's vision is never cited as authority or any purpose except to establish that Jesus overcame death.

So when people say things like there is no contemporary reports of the the First Vision, note the newspaper account, Lucy Smith's account, Pomeroy Tucker's account, and the fact that Joseph's entire family believed him, and stayed with the Church. Let's compare: The earliest accounts of the resurrection of Jesus were written 20 or 30 years after the Resurrection, and have many contradictions. Thursday or Friday supper? Etc. Does that affect the reality of the Resurrection? No.

So the First Vision evidence is excellent. It did happen. Even Joseph's critics acknowledged it.

Enjoy.

Mormons ARE Christians

2011-08-30T18:39:00.000-07:00

"Mormons have another Jesus!" "Mormons' Jesus is not the Jesus of historical Christianity!" "Mormons are not Christian."

These are very typical slurs hurled at Mormons by anti-Mormons. They are slurs because they are not academic observations used to stimulate understanding. They are intended as insults to the closely held personal beliefs of millions of Mormons. I can actually agree with the first two statements, as they are true. But the history of Christianity is conclusive in showing Mormons are Christians.

I heard one goof-ball say "What if I say I am a Mormon, I just don't believe in Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the First Vision or the restoration of priesthood authority? That's the same as saying you are Christians."

It is if you are an idiot.

First, anti-Mormons don't get to define what a Christian is to anyone other than themselves. I seriously don't care if someone doesn't think I am a Christian. Second, I believe in the same foundational document, the Bible, as they do, but I interpret it according to my conscience, not theirs. Lastly, their definition of a Christian would exclude all of the people in the Bible, including Jesus. Academics, Jews and Mormons are unable to locate the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible. It is a conclusion based on a philosophical perspective which is not Biblical. The Catholic Encyclopedia states it is nowhere in the Old Testament, and only inferred in the New Testament.

Drilling down, the LDS Articles of Faith grant the right to believe and worship to each person individually. So we expect to be excluded from other people's beliefs. And we define what it means to be LDS. But the Bible provides no definition of what a Christian is beyond one who believes in Jesus. There is no doctrinal litmus test. Bart Ehrman has written and taught extensively on the "Lost Christianities" which were divergent beliefs from what is now considered "orthodox" Christianity. They believed in some way in Jesus. The current "orthodox" Christianity is, from a historical standpoint, the result of fortunate circumstances and some lucky breaks in history. The Arian controversy, for example, could easily have resulted in a very different theology about Jesus, with Athanasian theology considered apostate.

We believe in Jesus, as described fully in the Bible. In fact I would assert we, as Mormons, believe more closely in the Biblical Jesus than any other people, as we understand the circumstances of Christ in the eternities and the context of the Bible. No later than February 1832 the clear description of man's destiny to become like God is revealed, and soon thereafter the Book of Abraham asserts this understanding of a Council of Gods was the background of the Bible. Sure enough, we get archaeological discoveries about 100 years later that show the people of the Bible DID know this was the background of the Bible. See Mark Smith's, "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism" or visit Micheal Heiser's website, and see how a devout Evangelical scholar presents the indisputable fact of history that Israel DID believe that God was among many gods.

Even more pointedly, early Christians believed and understood the teachings of the Bible to mean men could become gods. The earliest existing defense of the Christian faith was written by Justin Martyr around 140 AD. He notes Jesus is a "second god" after the creator of all things. He also notes our faith is that we will also become gods. What it meant to become a "god" gradually evolves, until we see Athanasius try to harmonize this belief with Trinitarianism by saying it is about fellowship with God and Jesus, not our own development.

But it is realistic to argue that Mormons are Christians, because we do believe what the Bible teaches about Jesus, not the stuff added over the centuries after the authors of the Bible had died.

Second, the Bible is the common document between anti-Mormon Christians and Mormon Christians. It is not the Book of Mormon, the First Vision or any other particular LDS belief. But let's consider the Catholics vs. Evangelicals. Are they both Christian? Today we would say yes, but historically the Catholic Church did not consider Evangelicals to be Christians for hundreds of years. They literally discriminated and killed each other. Protestants then really tried to get the Bible in the hands of commoners. This was a great thing, unless you were killed for trying to do so. This has many positive things, especially about personal spirituality.

But there are some negative things. Specifically in not understanding the context or content of the Bible. Or reading the Bible with a pre-existing prejudice from extra-Biblical teachers. Today we hear most Evangelicals argue it is by faith alone through grace alone that people are saved. But that simply ignores the plain teaching of the Bible that we do contribute to our salvation. God wants to save us, according to the Bible, but we have to follow him. Calvinists go further and say God has already decided who to save, which is the logical conclusion of Evangelical doctrine, and we are unable to do anything to become saved if we are not on God's pre-existing list.

I am routinely accused of hating the Bible because I discuss issues of textual criticism with people. I love the New Testament. I love truth even more. To fail to try to understand not just what the words mean, but what the original words were, is, in my opinion, not following Jesus' admonition that we demonstrate our love by keeping his word.

Finally, as I mentioned above, the Catholics defined the Protestants as non-Christians. It did not mean anything. Walter Martin did a great job of creating hatred of the "cults". Read early Christian history. They considered themselves a cult. They were initially Jews (followers of Abraham and Moses) who kept that faith and added to it Jesus and his teachings. They were called "Christians" because their Hebrew beliefs center on the interpretation added to it by Jesus, and the belief that Jesus was the son of God. Read John 10. This was blasphemy to the "orthodox" religion of the day, and they felt justified in stoning Jesus. Or beating the Apostles. Or killing Christians. Or, calling them names like "heretics". They eventually kicked them out of the synagogues, because they were different. The Christians considered themselves the children of Abraham, either by birth or adoption. They had the Old Testament, which they considered scripture, and they added to it new revelation. They were proud to be called Christians. Men like Paul still considered themselves Jews, regardless of the name calling, as well as Christians.

And so do we.

Mormons are Christians.

Final Shawn McCraney Post (for a while)

2011-02-13T16:46:00.000-08:00

My last post about Shawn McCraney illustrated my view that Shawn never really intended to have me or other knowledgeable defenders of the LDS faith on his program, Heart of the Matter.

So yesterday I got a phone call from a friend who, with another friend, spoke with Shawn about his fear of dealing with Mormon scholars, and me in particular.

My friend said that when my name was brought up, his perception was Shawn became visibly angry, responded with a short curt remark about how dumb bringing me up was to do, and then said he chose to not have me on because I am not a "real" Mormon, I just have my own philosophy which I disguise as Mormonism.

"Wow", was all I could say. The absurdity of such a view about me, if the report is accurate (and I believe my friend to be care about details, so I think it is) is almost beyond words. My credentials as a believing Mormon far exceed anything Shawn can throw around about his supposed "40 years as a Mormon". Granted, I have only been a Mormon for 35 years, but those don't include any infancy/pre-teen years. And they include 33 years of very active belief, study and attendance.

Let me elaborate a bit more. I served a two year mission without being homesick a single day. I loved the work. I have been an elder's quorum president 4 times. I served over 5 years in a bishopric as an executive secretary. I served as a counselor in a stake mission presidency for two years. I have repeatedly served as a stake missionary. I am currently in a stake presidency as an assistant clerk. I am also a member of FAIR, an organization which specifically defends the LDS Church from critics by promoting research, which is easily viewed on the FAIR WIKI. In my opinion, the FAIR Wiki is simply the most outstanding religious apologetic database on the Internet, because it fearlessly addresses EVERY criticism of the LDS Church, cites the sources making the claims, and then provides research and links responding to the criticism, acknowledging when a conclusion is one of several theories (such as the location of Cumorah, for example) or a settled fact, as in the case of historical events. It is an amazing resource. And it is definitely "peer reviewed" for facts.

To think that I have taken a chameleon's skin to create my own religious view, outside mainstream LDS belief, is laughable. I am a conservative LDS defender, a believing Mormon who affirms the LDS Church as the only true Church on the face of the Earth in terms of authority and prophetic leadership.

It is my belief that Shawn is not afraid of me from an intellectual or debating standpoint. I believe he is afraid of what he becomes when he is out of control of a situation. People see that on his show constantly when someone calls in and stumps him, or makes a valid point. He gets loud, sarcastic, caustic. He tries to bully his way through the conversation. Listen to his chat with Van Hale. Set aside who was being rude to whom. Doesn't matter. Listen to the tone, responses, sarcasm.

Look back over the years to my specific interaction on air with Shawn. He consistently makes statements and promises to respond. Or like last time, he just re-affirms that he has banned me from calling in. Then he puts forward his crafted position, like this past June, where he wants to present himself to the world as the unafraid, unintimidated crusader against the false doctrines of Mormonism. He will let anyone on his show, not to debate, but to present their views and then review them with pinpoint insight and clarity. He specifically denied his own documented words by saying it is false that he would not allow people such as me to call into his program.

Well, those are my views. Shawn is a complicated person. But he is pretty easy to read, I think, as well. I believe he is a bully, and the last thing a bully wants is someone to step forward who is not able to be bullied or frightened by emotional manipulation.

So don't expect Shawn to have Dan Peterson, Michael Ash, Kerry Shirts, Van Hale or folks like me on the program. Ever. As my friend said, "Shawn hates you. You can see it in how he discusses you." For him to control his anger and sarcasm, I believe, would be impossible for him to manage. The funny thing is just about nobody watches his program. Seriously, nearly no one, relative to the potential audience, is watching. So even if he had a horrible showing, pretty much no one would know. Of course, it would be on disk forever, which may be his fear. Everyone could watch, and certainly it would make his claim of an "encyclopedic knowledge" of Mormonism would be shown for what it really is.

Anyway, I am done talking about Shawn. I never thought he would have me on his program, and it turns out I was right. Call it what you want, at least we Mormons do go talk with the folks who want to engage us about doctrine, history or whatever.

Shawn McCraney and the Challenge of Truth

2011-02-11T22:03:00.000-08:00

I have previously written about a call I made to Shawn McCraney's television show, Heart of the Matter, on December 1, 2009, wherein Shawn accused me of lying to get on the air, yelled over the top of me, asked questions he refused to let me answer, and then hung up on me while remarking "this is why we don't allow you on the show, Bob." (55 minutes into the show.)

Apparently he received enough feedback from people about his chicken approach to dealing with LDS evidence, that June 15,2010 he announced (@ 5:10 into the show) that 2011 would be "the year of the guest", he would allow anyone on his show, including apologists "defenders of the faith", the LDS president, whomever, and that he would not debate the guest, but they would be allowed to present their view, and the entire hour would be devoted to reviewing the guest's views.

He then also stated that "I [Shawn] am forever being accused on the Internet about, uh, refusing to allow informed Latter-day Saints to call in, they're always welcome, so here's their chance. They can be a guest for the full hour, and they can sit and talk. We invite any and all. And Again, this means atheists, polygamists, people who receive revelations, defenders of the faith, Book of Mormon supporters, testimony sharers, ..." "Write Shawn at..."

So I wrote Shawn on July 17, 2010 after a person on YouTube suggested I contact him. I told him I was available, and I offered a long list of potential topics. He responded:

Thank you for your willingness to appear on Heart of the Matter.

We will contact you in the coming months with a date for your consideration and topic. We will try and provide you with at least four months of preparation time, in case you need it. Speak with you soon. And thank you for your willingness to participate.

Heart of the Matter

And so, according to Shawn's word, I waited for contact about a specific date. And waited. And waited.

Nothing.

So I sent him a note last week, 6-months after he said he would contact me.

Shawn,
Have not heard from anyone in the 6 months since your original note. Just curious if this is still something you are considering, or if the program has opted to go a different direction. Either way, drop me a note.

Best Regards,

Bob

He promptly responded:

We've headed a new direction. Only had seven or eight really reputable
guests willing to come on the program - not enough to build a year on.
Thanks for being willing. God bless.
Shawn

Notice the change. No longer "anyone", but "reputable guests".

I think this is because he was afraid of what would happen. If you don't have too many guests, and instead get 8 scholars on the program who run circles around you, this does not show well. His experience with Van Hale shows what happens when serious logic thwarts his uninformed emotionalism. He gets mad, sarcastic and becomes aggressively offensive, in my opinion.

So I wrote back and said I could possibly help locate additional guests by speaking with my LDS defender friends, and if nothing else, I would be happy to go to dinner with Shawn. Shawn had no interest unless I was willing to convert to his satisfaction to a belief in his Jesus. I told him I already believed Jesus was the only way to salvation, so we could go eat. He replied he had no interest.

So just to be clear, Shawn's call screener had told me I couldn't get on the air. When I slipped through an apparently uninitiated call screener, I was accused of lying, and Shawn affirmed what the previous call screen had said, namely I was banned from being on the show.

Then he said on air everyone is allowed to call in. Really? He must have forgotten his own words.

Then he said he would have me on the show. Then he said he wouldn't.

My goodness. He changes positions faster than a president after a political shellacking.

Or is there more here? Sadly, no. I had told several people Shawn would never have people like me on his program, as the risk was too great for him to come off badly. He would rather have a few people find out he won't have Mormons on his show, than have everyone see "the fruits of a born again Mormon."

Immanuel and the Highest God

2011-01-25T17:00:00.000-08:00

Reading Isaiah, the Messiah born to a virgin is "Immanuel", "God Among Us". I have often heard this as the proof that there is only one God in a Trinitarian sense. But it is really proof that there are more than one real God.

During Christmas season, everyone sings the beautiful hymns such as "Far, Far Away on Judeas Plain", and "Oh Come, All Ye Faithful", which both perpetuate a mistranslation of the King James Translation of the Bible which obscures who is whom.

We read in Luke 2:14 "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." To say this is a bad translation is to be kind. All modern translations of this verse follow, more or less, the more accurate translation found in the NIV:

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests."

What gets lost in this is the intent of "in the highest". This, according to most commentators and several translations, has to do with "in the highest heaven" (NLT, God's Word Translation, Weymouth NT, among commentators Barnes, Clark, Gill and others).

The idea is fairly straight forward: Give glory (praise, honor)to the God who is in the highest heaven, and therefore superior to all other heavenly beings, AND on Earth, men blessed by God are given peace.

Since this angelic announcement takes place AFTER the birth of Christ, where does this put "Immanuel" in relation to "God in the Most High Heaven"?

Well, first of all, it essentially proves that God, as acknowledged by Jesus, is Jesus' superior: "The only true God" (John 17:3). It also shows the understanding was that while Jesus is divine, he is viewed as an "intermediate" God (Acts 17:18), where Jesus is described by Paul in such a way that the Greek philosophers characterize him as a "daimonion", a "strange god" who is atoning for man and being resurrected from the dead, which by definition is:

1 the divine power, deity, divinity
2 a spirit, a being inferior to God, superior to men (Thayer's Greek Lexicon)

The New Testament message of Christ's relationship to God the Father is clear: He is like him, fully a god, yet is a separate god who in essence reports to God: John 1:1-2; Phil 2:6; 1 Cor 8:6; Heb 1:3, 1:9; 2:7-13.

Jesus is the first born of many brethren (and sisters). He was the son of God, which he himself goes to pains to explain means that he is "inferior" to God (John 10:30-38.

The logical dilemma for Trinitarians is we see in the Bible something which is otherwise impossible: If Jesus is God, he keeps appearing next to himself, and even being in two places simultaneously, something logically impossible. Not in the sense of God being omniscient or omnipresent in some manner. We affirm that, even as we recognize we don't know how it is done.

No, it is much more direct: A thing cannot stand next to itself. Acts 7:55-56 is a verse I often site. Jesus is standing, physically, next to God, who is physically visible and present. Jesus sits to the right hand of God in around a dozen verses. Jesus affirms that his oneness with God is identical to that which the saints can similarly experience (John 17:21-24).

The most straightforward explanation is that God and his son are separate and distinct beings. I have gone to great pains to show that from the text of the Bible, there can be no doubt, even in Isaiah, that God was part of a pantheon of divine beings, who could and were rightly called "gods", and that God in Hebrew thought had a wife. It is largely the result of the painful gymnastics of the "unknowable mystery of the Trinity", a doctrine made up by men to try to force an explanation on the data showing multiple divine beings, to force it into their philosophical position that perfection could only be in "one god", and then selectively harvesting the statements in scripture indicating there is only one God, ignoring context, and ignoring clear statements about multiple, real gods found nearly everywhere in the Bible as well ("Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods." Ps 97:7).

Think about this next Christmas. The New Testament knew who they worshiped, the translators just don't like it.

Am I worthy?

2010-12-19T07:56:00.000-08:00

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.(Matt 5:48)

1 ¶ I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,(Eph 4:1)

4 Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy.(Rev 3:4)

Anti-Mormons will often describe the Gospel as declared by the LDS faith as being an "Impossible Gospel of Mormonism". They assert that Mormons must be essentially sinless to be worthy of salvation in the celestial kingdom. They make this assertion based on a highly selective and flawed reading of works by LDS authors such as Spencer W. Kimball's "The Miracle of Forgiveness", without any attempt to provide context or, for that matter, complete citations from within the work, or in the larger scheme, from official sources.

So let's break this down for a moment. The "perfect" spoken of in Matthew 5:48 is not about an inerrant, sinless type of existence. The word translated as "perfect" is better rendered "complete". Be complete as the Father is complete. This statement comes at the end of the Beatitudes, the nature of existence about which we should strive to be. None of the Beatitudes say "Don't ever sin", since such an admonition is patently impossible for a human. Instead, it encourages us to love, be kind, be forgiving and make peace with all people. The closest Jesus comes to saying "be sinless" is in noting the "pure in heart" shall see God (which, to state the obvious, means Jesus is not asserting he is God, or else it would have been fulfilled for those who are also NOT pure in heart). The word pure, "Katharos" (Gk) (like the word "cathartic"), means to be clean, innocent, unstained with the guilt of anything, having pure desires.

The state of "purity" is attained only through the Atonement of Christ through faith. One cannot be "pure in heart" if they have no desire to be pure in the Biblical sense, or they will not seek purity through Jesus.

We know this to be the case because Paul tell us to be pure, and even more significantly, John notes there are in fact "worthy" people in Sardis, who shall walk in white (symbol of purity) with Jesus. These are part of the series of comments about the various Churches, and at the end John notes that Jesus will make those that over come pillars in the Temple of God, never to go out again, with God's name written on their forehead. (Rev 3:12, 18-21).

Revelation 3 makes it clear that Jesus is the source of purity (Rev 3:18), but that we are in fact responsible for accepting him, retaining him and repenting as we make errors, which is how we are worthy (Rev 3:20; 3:10 and 3:19, respectively).

How are we worthy then? Not by unfailing exactness or never failing obedience, but by becoming complete. That means that when we are disobedient, we repent, but we try to stay clean. If perfection were the requirement for the LDS, as ascribed by its critics, then the LDS Church would have excised those "corrupt" passages of scripture which offer us, indeed command us, to repent. We would also have no need for talking the sacrament weekly, or "repent speedily"(D&C 65:13), one of some 75 direct admonitions in the D&C for people, in and out of the Church, to repent.

So be worthy. That means have the attitude of pure thoughts, eschew evil, and repent of your sins through the atonement of Jesus Christ, and therefore walk worthy of the high calling of salvation, walking in white with Jesus. How great is that opportunity given to mankind. How sad for those who think accepting Christ is only done with the mouth or heart, and not the feet (Romans 10:8-16) or by obedience.

Be perfect this Christmas.

Trying to Call Hateful Acts Love

2010-10-03T11:25:00.000-07:00

I was at General Conference for the priesthood session downtown yesterday, and rather than fight with the anti's before hand, I saw Van Hale, and he suggested I visit the Church History Museum, which I did. They have some great items on exhibit.

I then went to Priesthood in the Tabernacle, and spoke with a few folks afterwards, and went to my soccer game.

Nothing really remarkable. But I was struck by the hate speech of Lonnie and others, which they attempt to justify as Christian love for the lost, and a defense of the Christian faith.

So first, let's define the word "Defense". It means to protect. No one can misconstrue the difference between national defense, for example, and an act of war. Putting up walls around your castle did not mean you were marching on your enemies' castles. It is pure "future speak" to call war a defense.

No one can read my columns and say "Bob is anti-Catholic". Or anti-Protestant, or Anti-Evangelical. I would concede I border on anti-TULIP, simply because I write very pointedly of their differences to the LDS faith.

I am definitely "anti-anti", that is, I have no qualms engaging specific individuals arguments. I do not believe I engage in Ad Hominem attacks against the critics as a means of argumentation. To be specific, I don't say "Shawn McCraney is a liar about everything, so his arguments against the Church are obviously wrong." No, I describe his specific arguments, and show where they are wrong, and as with some writers I have engaged, I will point out things which I believe can be observed as so obviously in error, they are either lying or too ignorant to be taken seriously.

But even these conversations I attempt to do in a civil manner, as any viewing of my interactions with anti-Mormons on Youtube clearly illustrate.

So back to the unChristian protesters at Temple Square. What can we say about them? They have objects which in LDS religious settings are considered religiously important. Priesthood clothing articles, the Book of Mormon, pictures of LDS leaders or religious vignettes. And they mock them all.

Paul noted that a Pastor must have a good reputation with the non-believers (1Tim 3:7). Since Shawn McCraney, for example, claims to be a pastor, such a claim does not hold up to even basis scrutiny. Nor upon a deeper review, owing to his own public admission of having committed the physical act of adultery against his marriage, and his acknowledge ongoing issues around committing adultery in his heart. He can certainly be a disciple of Christ, but such actions, I believe, disqualify him to be a Pastor.

Lonnie Purciful likewise claims to be a pastor. REALLY! If Shawn McCraney is disqualified as a pastor, Lonnie is literally a thousand times worse. His attacks against LDS and non-LDS alike place him outside of Christianity. In fact, his approach is really one which defines him as the arbiter of the definition of what is "Truth". He rejects most other non-LDS Christians, and so has managed to marginalize his importance in the efforts at conversion away from any faith he attacks.

In other words, as rude, uncivil and mean-spirited as Lonnie and his group is, they do fulfill prophecy. They are they who believe no one can teach them anything, and are comfortable acting as the persecutors of the humble who simply love God and seek to live a life in conformity to the teachings of God.

We should love Lonnie, and thank him. Many, many people have joined the LDS Church because of people like Lonnie. Their persecution of the LDS faith provides the context for us to defend our faith. And people see the difference between sharing what you believe, and ignorantly attacking what you don't believe.

We should contend for the Faith. We should attack no other faith.

Joseph Smith asked which church he should join, and was told to join none, for they were all in error. Were that not the case, the Restoration would not be necessary. So too Jesus established His Church because the Jewish faith had gone astray. So back through time. That Jesus felt the Jews were people in error within his faith is clear from his continued attendance and involvement with the Jewish faith. Though the Jews eventually through the Christians out, the Christians still feel brotherhood to the Jews.

So to the LDS. We share a common heritage of faith. While we acknowledge our brothers to have significant errors because of their not having the light of prophetic leadership, we still view them as brothers and sisters in Christ. There was no Trinitarian test of faith to know Jesus of the Gospels and the Bible.

And like those early Christians, Mormons are rejected by those brothers, and persecuted for daring to point out where the primitive faith was corrupted and is now restored. There is no anti-Catholic or anti-Protestant "ministries" in the LDS Church. Period. It is a sign of which faith is true.

Likewise, the fact that "Christians" will defend Lonnie and Shawn and others as legitimate expressions of Christian outreaches, shows all of those groups to actually not be "Christian" by the simplest of definitions. They don't follow Christ's or the Biblical model of evangelizing those outside their faith. And they don't do it with respect and meekness (1Pet 3:15-16).

So we invite you to come learn of Christ with us. We reject the hateful speech, actions and evil spirit carried by such. The contrast between Good and Evil is obvious.

El Beth El, The Place Where Gods Appeared (Gen 35:7)

2010-07-10T06:31:00.000-07:00

Apologies in advance for the length of this thing.

One of the most common assertions about the Hebrew faith by modern Christians and Jews is that the Bible is about a monotheistic faith delivered to Abraham.

When Mormons discuss that by revelation, God has explained that is not the case, but that the destiny of mankind is to follow in the footsteps of God (who has feet, Gen 3:8), and sit on his throne, by invitation and through overcoming the world (Rev 3:21), to rule and reign with God and Jesus, they are attacked as attempting to replace God and change the Faith to polytheism. Mormons don't believe they will ever replace God the Father, or no longer worship him as God.

But the obvious issue here is this creates a type of polytheism in Mormonism. Not that they worship multiple Gods, for in one sense there really is only one God, as the Shema of Deut 6:4 says. They are in complete harmony, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but they are distinct beings who in simple terms share the same mind, that is they are in perfect union of thought because perfection in godhood leads to the same values and desires, and so they share the "mind of God" (Alma 36:4, D&C Official Declaration 1 comments, Moses 4:6, Rom 8:27), which is the holy Spirit, as taught in Lectures on Faith 5:2, which is sometimes twisted by critics to try to say there is some kind of binary godhead in the LDS faith, because the Spirit is described as the method of creating the "mind of god" between the Father and Son and Humankind as well, even though the lecture also states:

these three are one; or, in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme, power over all things; by whom all things were created and made that were created and made, and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one;

going on to state of the relationship of man to the godhead:

...the Spirit of the Father, which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments; and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all; being filled with the fullness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one.

Lectures on Faith were removed in 1921 from the D&C (effectively removing the "Doctrine" part, as historically that is what that part of the D&C referenced)because they really were essentially Sunday School lessons prepared for the early Church, and had never been officially endorsed as inspired writings. Their explanation of doctrines is in a style which can lead to some misunderstandings or nuanced differences in light of later revelations and official doctrinal statements by the Church, such as the somewhat ambiguous teaching about the nature of the Spirit, which can be read in two very different ways, and was clarified in D&C 130:22-23. Since the lectures were never accepted by the Church as "official" scripture, their removable was only mildly controversial within the Church, and is now seen as no more significant than the change of the topical guide or chapter headings.

Anyway, despite the critics of the LDS Church's contention that the idea of their being multiple real gods was a doctrinal evolution in the Church from the 1830's-40's, D&C 76, dating from Feb 1832, makes the existence of "gods",and the destiny of humanity to potentially become like God and gods themselves, explicit (D&C 76:58).

Starting in the 20th Century, the archaeological evidence began to bring to life the previously ignored textual evidence of the Hebrew faith being believers in the existence of multiple real gods, in a way similar to their Canaanite neighbors. The discovery of the Ugaritic texts from Syria in the late 1920's did not have significant impact on Biblical interpretation until they began receiving broad scholarly dissemination in the 1960's and beyond. Today the work of Raphael Patai and Mark Smith, as well as a host of other scholars including Michael Heiser (a non-LDS Christian who attends a Reformed church, and works for Logos Bible Software as their academic editor)and his extensive writings on the Divine Council make defense of "exclusive monotheism" untenable as the teaching of the original Hebrew religion.

The Place where Gods Appeared

Finally, we start to engage the scripture in Genesis 35:7. The King James Bible records:

7 And he built there an altar, and called the place Elbethel: because there God appeared unto him, when he fled from the face of his brother.

There are a couple of very interesting items within this verse. First, the name "Elbethel" actually means "God's house of God", because this was the place where God appeared to Jacob. Today we still say that the Temple is the "House of the Lord" and that God visits his holy temples, as he apparently has done throughout history.

But secondly, and even more significantly, is what the King James Version ignores. The word for "appeared", galah is translated as a singular. But in fact, it is a plural. Coupled as it is with "elohim", the correct and accurate translation should be "there gods appeared unto him".

This has many, many theological and historical implications.

First, because Moses uses "El" and "Elohim" in the statement about naming the place and the plurality of "El"s, it is not possible to contend (as Michael Heiser and other critics of the LDS Church often do) that there is an "ontological" difference between Elohim/Jehovah, and the other 'elohim'. (Ontological means "nature of existence", and is asserted to mean in its application to Elohim/Jehovah, that He is self-existent, but the other 'gods' are contingently existent, based on Elohim/Jehovah creating them). The assertion is that the other "elohim' are really more like angels than 'gods'. Moses' statement about what happened to Jacob makes such a contention impossible to maintain. Moses/Jacob lumps El into the same bucket as the other "elohim"/gods that appear to Jacob.e learn from this verse that the statements from Deut 32:8-9, Ps 82, Ps 95:3, Ps 97:7, 9; or Genesis 3:5, 22 do not discriminate about the nature of existence between "El/Elohim/Jehovah" and the other 'gods'.

This inevitably results in some unschooled critic shooting me a note about Isaiah 43:10 and saying "if god doesn't know of any other gods, Mormonism must be false."

Oh that one need never do research, our prejudices would be so much easier to maintain.

It turns out that no one who has actually studied the cultural context of the Hebrew people in light of the Ugaritic texts and other archaeological finds from Israel believe the verse is about anything other than idols or the superiority of Jehovah to the other real gods which cannot save us. Scholars point out Isaiah references the Divine Council himself, and so he is not saying there are no other real gods. He is saying men can make no real gods. He is also not addressing what God holds in store for humanity.

If we stick to the strict language applied to the verses like Isaiah 43:10 invoked by LDS critics stretching for proof of this being a statement against the existence of other real gods, then we must concede that God notes that there was also a time before his own creation.

Of course the answer by the critics is essentially "don't stick my sacred cow with your interpretation". Well, why don't we read this like those folks of Isaiah's day would have read it. But to do so gets you into Mark Smith's or Michael Heisers, or similar experts, who flatly deny the verses are making any claim about the existence of other real gods. Here are a few examples:

In briefest terms, the statements in the canonical text (poetic or otherwise) inform the reader that, for the biblical writer, Yahweh was an אלהים [elohim] , but no other [elohim]אלהים was Yahweh—and never was nor could be. This notion allows for the existence of other אלהים [elohim] and is more precise than the terms “polytheism” and “henotheism.” It is also more accurate than “monotheism,” though it preserves the element of that conception that is most important to traditional Judaism and Christianity: Yahweh’s solitary “otherness” with respect to all that is, in heaven and in earth.

But on what grounds can this description be derived? The elements of the text that allow this approach have been copiously documented in the scholarly literature. As Isaiah 43:10 and 44:6-8 affirm, the canonical writers assume that their God was uncreated and always existed, and that the other gods were subsequent. This alone points to intrinsic superiority to and distinction from all the other gods.[Michael Heiser, Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible, pg 23

Reading Heiser, one is struck by his insightful reading, yet difficult balancing act, as he tries to harmonize a traditional doctrine of Trinitarianism with his research results. Traditional Christianity doesn't believe there were any additional divine beings, period. They call it "exclusive monotheism". Heiser is essentially saying to traditional Christians, "Don't get hung up on the words, look at the faith and not the labels of the early Christians and Jews." Of course, his belief that there can be any additional real gods, regardless of their inferiority to to Jehovah or not, is unacceptable to almost all unschooled traditional Christians, and requires a change of view by them. While his position is not as radical as Mormonism is to traditional Christianity, it is not traditional Christianity.

Finally, while I have the highest respect for Heiser's work, I think he is straining to try to retain his faith. As Genesis 35:7 shows, the Hebrews did not feel a need to differentiate between the types of "Elohim". His method of differentiating between the types of Elohim and Jehovah boils down in his writing to placing his entire emphasis on a two verses, Neh 9:6, and Ps 33:6, which say that God "made" (Heb. "asah" Strongs 6213, to make from existing material, BDB pp 793-5)the hosts of heaven.

Heiser's argument is that because Jehovah "made" the host of heaven, which are 'gods'/elohim, he has a different type of existence than those elohim he has created. That assumes that the cycle or process of creating 'elohim' starts with Jehovah. Such an assertion is absent from the Bible. Jehovah/God is concerned about our existence. There is not Biblical conversation about the "time", as it were, before Jehovah organized this planet. From Everlasting, from all eternity, is a very long time. Especially when it passes without comment.

Moreover, Heiser's argument by necessity relegates Jesus to a position of 'ontological inferiority' to Jehovah, since Hebrews 2:6-18 and Hebrews 12:9 make it clear that the Father made the spirits of all men and Jesus too. Instead of demoting man to an inferior existence, as is the case with traditional Christianity, the Bible in fact elevates man kind to a quality equal to God's, though we are beneath him.

Acts 17:29
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.

Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10 ¶ For it became him, for whom [are] all things, and by whom [are] all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified [are] all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
14 ¶ Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

The Bible may differentiate in how gods came to be gods, but it never approaches the idea that any god's existence is inferior in terms of its capability or existence compared to Jehovah. Throughout the Old Testament, Jesus is Jehovah, or the mouth piece of the Father, so the role of Jesus in the OT is sometimes hard to detect. But we do see that in the NT, according to Heiser's criteria, Jesus would be an inferior God.

Yet I believe the reason Jacob states that Gods appeared to him at ElBethEl is because he saw two Gods, the Father and the Son. The Biblical text explicitly supports that he did see two real Gods. That makes the faith of the Bible similar to the faith of the LDS Church.

Sorry for the length of this blog post, but the concepts require a lot of interaction with the arguments of critics to really show that the faith of the LDS is in fact Biblical and defendable.

Jesus: Not Really The Son of God?

2010-07-01T06:08:00.000-07:00

Mormons are regularly said to have "another Jesus" than the traditional Jesus of Christianity. I don't find that offensive, even though it is said in the context to attack our beliefs as unBiblical.

But this is a case of "Please don't look too close at our Jesus" by the attackers.

Trinitarian Jesus is not really the son of God, in any meaningful sense of the word "son". Nor is there really a "father".

A son, in the context of a dictionary definition, is:

1. a : a human male offspring especially of human beings
b : a male adopted child
c : a human male descendant

2 capitalized : the second person of the Trinity

3 : a person closely associated with or deriving from a formative agent (as a nation, school, or race) (Webster Online).

The first thing you note is that the second person of the Trinity is not a human male offspring, a male adopted child, or a human male descendant. He is something else.

So they made up a category: A name. Unconnected to anything which could mean an actual relationship.

A typical definition of the trinity follows along these lines:

The three Biblical doctrines that flow directly into the river that is the Trinity are as follows:

1) There is one and only one God, eternal, immutable.

2) There are three eternal Persons described in Scripture - the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. These Persons are never identified with one another - that is, they are carefully differentiated as Persons.

3) The Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are identified as being fully deity---that is, the Bible teaches the Deity of Christ and the Deity of the Holy Spirit. [Alpha & Omega Ministries]

The three persons are not "generated" by any one of the other persons of the Trinity, otherwise there would be a time when "the Father" would cease to be "the Father", because without a son, there can be no father. Arianism was the idea that the Son was a created being. That was the first great heresy of Christian doctrine, and required the Council of Nicea to resolve. This also led to the doctrine of the "two natures" of Jesus, to explain why he could appear to be human and yet be fully God as well. The "filioque" also came out of this, the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, instead of just the Father. The filioque doctrine is largely responsible for the split between the Eastern and Latin Churches in 1054 AD.

For Mormons, God is literally their Father, as he is the father of spirits (Hebrews 12:9), the creator of their pre-existent spirit (Eccl 12:7). Jesus is their brother (Hebrews 2:9-14), the son of God in a literal sense as well.

And let's not forget that Mormons believe we are the "offspring of God", the "genos" of God, springing from the same family line (Acts 17:29).

When John 1:12 tells us we can become the sons of God through accepting him. This, in the context, is the ability to return to God and see him, as John 1:18 notes, having been born IN THIS LIFE of God. So note that Acts, Hebrews and Ecclesiastes are talking about our birth BEFORE this life, John is talking about faith working to salvation in this life and in the future.

Jesus himself notes his deference to the superior position of God to him in that he notes in John 10 that the titles of "god" as used in scripture is actually superior to his title as "son of god" (John 10:33-36), though he was a son before his earthly birth.

So scripture says Jesus and humanity are all sons. It notes he had a superior pre-existence, was always a god himself. So how does a being who was always God,refer to another being as "the only true God"?

Jesus can only be a son if there is something about his relationship that makes him a male offspring or descendant of the father in the same way we are. Otherwise Hebrews 2 is meaningless. So too Hebrews 12.

The false doctrine of monolatry, of not understanding the henotheistic nature of there being multiple real gods has led to the false doctrine of the Trinity. The Father in the Trinity didn't really father anyone or anything related to Jesus. He is co-eternal with Jesus in the relationship of Father-Son. The title 'father' in fact implies existence prior to the son. It is simple word games to say the Father and the Son must be co-existent because the titles would be incorrect. Yet a father provides the source DNA in humans before the child exists.

What does the "Father" in Trinitarian thought provide the "Son" which is essential to his creation as a son?

Nothing. Because the Trinity is one god expressed as three persons, the roles of the Father and the Son may as well have been selected by slot machine. Nothing is unique about the Father or the Son that could not have been reversed prior to the Son's mortal incarnation. It is simply a role of respect: The Son respects the Father in Trinitarianism. He may have lost at "Rock, Paper, Scissors", and therefore is obligated to respect him. But there is nothing unique about the Father's being which could not be entirely demonstrated in the Son's being. Now the holy Spirit, he proceeds from the Father and (for some) the Son, so he is different. So too, the Son is "generated" from the Father, yet in Trinitarian theology the Father cannot be divided from the Son, since they come from the one essence of God, which they mutually share. Yeah, sure this is all the truth about God.

Since Jesus is generated in a way which does not come from either creation or produce existence, being a "Son" is truly the most meaningless use of a word which had, prior to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity, a clear and universally understood meaning. Do we really think all the New Testament authors decided to play word games, and ignore the clear meaning of the word, especially when Paul uses the concept of "heir" in Romans 8 to say our inheritance is identical to that of Jesus', that we are "joint heirs"?

It is true that Mormons have another Jesus. We have Jesus the Son of God, the Biblical Jesus.

We are not confused.

Myths and Stories

2010-06-12T10:00:00.000-07:00

Mormons and non-Mormons, and yes anti-Mormons, all have their favorite 'true' stories they love to tell. Unfortunately, because history is a complex tapestry of events, and requires some form of editing to tell the story, we find the regular accusation of one side or the other "lying" or "deceiving" to get their story out with their spin.

I try to deal with the problem by reading both sides of an issue in attempting to make a decision about what history might actually have been. If you look at my personal library, I probably by a ratio of three or four to one own non-LDS books, and I probably own about 1/2 as many anti-Mormon books as Mormon-authored books, the vast majority of my library consisting of non-LDS scholarly works.

So let's discuss a few issues which are commonly discussed using the ever authoritative "everybody knows" author.

1. Wes Walters proved there was no revival in 1820, therefore Joseph Smith lied about the First Vision.
False. The Rev. Wesley Walters is most famous for finding, and then stealing, a document he said showed Joseph Smith was convicted of "glass looking". He only returned the document when he was threatened with charges for the unlawful removal of the document. In any event, subsequent analysis has shown that according to the fees in place for a constable and justice of the peace, Joseph Smith was only charged, but was found not guilty.

In any event, prior to finding this document, a 1967 article about revivals in the Palmyra area put Walters on the anti-Mormon historian map. He asserted there was no record of a revival in the Palmyra area in 1820. This led to frantic activity by LDS scholars to verify his assertion, and see if evidence to the contrary existed. Walters took the position that he was an unbiased and open seeker of truth, and that he simply had a heart for the deceived Mormon people. That was his position until irrefutable proof of the existence of not just revivals in Palmyra was discovered, but that there were in fact huge numbers of converts in the period from 1817-1820 (See Backman's, "The First Vision", Chapters 3-5 and appendices P & Q, and D. Michael Quinn's 2006 article (hard to find now on the Internet, but I have a copy)"Joseph Smith's Experience of a Methodist 'Camp Meeting' in 1820", wherein he points out that they told Walters about the camp meetings in the Palmyra area back in 1969, and he thereafter refused to engage the LDS scholarly community, and essentially played to the sympathetic, uninformed and trusting anti-LDS community. He lied about the existence of any evidence in a 1980 article, and never came clean before his 1990 death. I must point out the irony of a man who attacks Joseph Smith for making up events and deceiving people who himself consciously stole documents from government offices and outright lies about the very existence of sources after previously acknowledging them in his writings.

So we have documented revivals in the Palmyra-Manchester area from 1817 through 1820 by non-LDS sources. The assertion that Joseph got confused about 1824 revivals has no merit. Joseph's story of heavy religious activity in the Palmyra area is confirmed.

2. Joseph Smith used a curtain to separate himself from his scribes during the translation of the Book of Mormon.
Answer: Mostly false. There was a very brief period of a few days during the time Joseph was translating with Martin Harris when they put up a curtain. But this was the exception. They did put a curtain over the front door to the house to get people to not look in just passing by, but everyone in the house could see what was going on, if they cared to look.

The translation process really is divided into two parts. During the early translation time, before the 116 pages were lost, Joseph would wear the breast plate with the silver glass bow attached at the shoulder, containing the translators.

After the plates were returned following the loss of the pages, Joseph used the Seer Stone exclusively in the hat with a small hole for light. Apparently the silver bow was uncomfortable to wear. Joseph had confidence in the seer stone based on his earlier experiences, so I am sure after prayerful consideration, he made the change.

Interestingly, translation was always a wide open process in the home of wherever he was translating. Everyone saw what was happening. Thus Emma noted in an interview with her son that it was impossible for Joseph to have any books or manuscripts to copy from, since he was in plain view and she would have seen them. This is devastating news to anti-Mormons, who envision Joseph behind a curtain reading the Isaiah passages directly from the Bible, changing the occasional word. (Did I mention there was no Bible in the home when the Isaiah passages were translated? True. Makes it hard to read from a book which isn't there.)

So what of the plates being seen by everyone? Well, it turns out that Joseph never looks at the bare plates during translation. They are in a box or a large bag while sitting on the table or nearby. In at least one instance, he translated using the Seer stone while the plates were not in the house at all. This is not really shocking when seen in the context that the translation was achieved by the "gift and power of God", and not by human intelligence. Joseph is having the translation communicated to him via divine means.

Why do we have those classic pictures in Ward libraries showing Joseph with his finger on the plates, sometimes with Oliver seeing the plates, and not Urim and Thummim or Seer stone? I am not really sure. I have looked at this from a historical perspective, and it seems that starting early in the 20th Century, discussion of the mechanics of the translation virtually ceased, as use of the Book of Mormon in public preaching also was reduced. In the second half of the 20th Century there was a huge push in missionary work and reading the Book of Mormon. At that point artists offered up psuedo-realistic artwork which lacked accurate detail. The correct discussion of the process has been discussed in official LDS sources, but institutional inertia being what it is, I suspect nobody wants to take responsibility inside the Curriculum department to change.

3. Danites enforced Joseph and Brigham's dictates.
False. In fact the opposite. Initially the Danites were a more or less positive civic service organization to help the Saints. But when they turned sinister, Joseph separated them from the Church.

Related topic is people were killed or afraid of death by the Danites.
False, at least as related to Church doctrine and apostasy. Thousands left the Church for various reasons in the 1800's. Not a single assassination is tied to the Church leaders by any credible, verifiable source. When I hear this charge, I always ask for the name of someone among these masses. There is always dumb silence, or they name one or two events which have no link to Brigham Young or Joseph Smith. Name names, if you have a case, prove it.

4. Mormons are ignorant of their doctrines.
Yes and No. I know very few theologians in the Church. Most study for their own spiritual growth. In fact, a PEW survey showed Mormons study the Bible more than any other denomination's adherents. (So if Mormons are ignorant, what word do you use for those who study even less?) Most can tell you what they believe, which in my experience is pretty close to official doctrine. Most cannot tell you at any depth about controversial historical issues. And why should they? I literally have never met a non-ministerial person who even understands the issues around Biblical textual transmission and errors. I am certainly no expert, but I am informed. Most swallow what their pastor told them, and go no further. Which, I think, is generally good enough. The Bible is not true because of perfect transmission. It is true because the Spirit can testify of its truth. Just like the Book of Mormon, as the D&C says.

5. The Church is money driven.
No more so than Malachi is money driven. Financial issues drive the ability of an organization to impact the lives of believers and non-believers alike. The Church expects members to be willing to pay tithing because we all obligated to help move the ministry forward. The Church does much good with what it has. Considering it is about 1/70th the size of the Catholic Church, and makes more money than any other Church, I think that is a statement to the commitment of members, who live in the real world and not cult-like compounds attempting to control the members exposure to the world, it is even more remarkable.

6. Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
Answer: No. In fact, emphatically no. We have a copy of his memo saying to let them pass. His secretary took the original ink note he composed, wetted it with water, then pressed it against another sheet of paper to get an exact, mirror image duplicate of the note. (This was standard procedure of all 1st presidency correspondence.) He said to let them pass. Assertions of him wanting to let the Indians kill the Fancher party are likewise complete distortions of history. He certainly was OK with the Indians harrassing all non-LDS wagon parties, striving for some degree of isolation at one point in time. But there is never any OK given to kill anyone. Ever. If that were not the case, the Cedar City Stake President and leader of the local militia, Isaac Haight, would not have reportedly been quoted as saying, after ordering the attack, upon receiving the note from Pres. Young, "Too late, too late," and then began to cry. In other words, he made the decision, not BY.

7. The Church is not growing.
Well, not really true. You can do the math on the number of wards being created year over year, and that is the most accurate measure of active membership. The rate of adding wards is slowing, true. But it is growing. Now I think growth means absolutely nothing in terms of whether an organization is true or false. But expansion throughout the world is one of the signs of the times, and so is important in that way. And also the fact that there were prophecies about temples to dot the world is also important. That growth is occurring is not seriously questionable. The Church does not waste money. It won't build buildings, add ward units, etc., if there is no growth. Since 1999, there are 300 new stakes (2,542 vs. 2,865) and about 3 million members. There are over 2,700 new wards and branches (25,793 vs. 28,424. So if an average ward has 150 active members, then you are talking around 1/2 million new active members. Which is not a great retention rate, to be sure, but it is certainly growth. But it also doesn't speak to the issue of allowing wards to backfill more. I know our activity rate is above 50% in my area. But is there only 4.5 million active members worldwide? Official and anecdotal evidence would seem to be contrary to that.

8. Mormons "earn" salvation.
No. If that were the case, there would be no doctrine of the Atonement. Man DOES have a role in his salvation, but it is simply false to think that a Mormon believes he can get to heaven without Jesus' help. I think it is like driving a car up a steep hill. Jesus is the car and the gas. But we still need to get in the car, turn it on and drive. Too many "Christians" think they just need to know the car is there, and don't have to get on board.

Enough for today. Drop me a note if you have additional items.
Thanks,
Bob

Mormonism in Mark 16:16, Faith and Ordinances= Salvation

2010-03-13T17:16:00.000-08:00

I posed the question months ago to two folks, who never answered, so let's make it a headline:

Please answer directly, according to Mark 16:16 what does Jesus say it takes to be saved?

16he who hath believed, and hath been baptized, shall be saved; and he who hath not believed, shall be condemned. (Young's Literal Tranlsation, 1898)

This is Jesus talking. It predates all of Paul's writings. Many scholars believe Mark used the source material quoted in the Gospels much more literally than any other of the Evangelists.

The passage is remarkable for several reasons. First, grammatically it weighs faith and baptism equally for salvation.

Most non-LDS try to grab the second half of the verse for justification to ignore the parts they don't like in the first half. Jesus says, "he who hath not believed, shall be condemned."

I am not really interested in what it takes to be condemned. Anyone can be condemned. Just ignore Jesus. What I am concerned about is what does Jesus expect of me to be saved?

Believe and be baptized. In equal force. Belief is the intellectual part, so to speak, the motivational force. Baptism is the physical obedience. The requirement to not just think about salvation, but do something as well.

The letter to the Hebrews clearly recognized this:

"Although he [Jesus] was a son, he learned obedience through the things he suffered. 9 And by being perfected in this way, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him" (Heb. 5:8-9, NET Bible).

So it is a simple request I make: Tell me why I should ignore Jesus' direct statement about what it takes to be saved, instead trying to parse from what it takes to not be saved to ignore the command to be baptized?

If I truly believe LDS doctrine is Biblical doctrine, and I do, this passage stands like a lighthouse in the darkness of false doctrines about salvation. On the other hand, for those who profess "sola scriptura", it will be interesting to hear why such a direct, clear and unqualified statement by Jesus, the author of eternal salvation, should be ignored.

Avoid the profane chatter and absurdities of so-called “knowledge.” By professing it, some have strayed from the faith

2010-01-09T10:15:00.000-08:00

So Paul advised Timothy (1 Tim 6:20-21)noting that believing in trying to win and retain converts through "knowledge" (gr, 'gnosis'), you run a risk of losing them to those arguments. That is because Paul recognizes the basis of belief is a relationship to the Spirit:

12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor 2:12-14

Paul is not saying we should not seek for knowledge. Indeed, he and Peter both admonish us to add knowledge to faith (2 Cor 8:7; 2 Pet 1:5).

Anti-Mormons routinely assail the faith of Latter-day Saints, mocking the very real yet personal revelation of the truth of the restoration by the Spirit. But the Bible is clear that such experiential "knowledge" is real though not discerned by the world, and therefore neither objective nor rational, but rather subjective and irrational.

A stumbling block to traditional Christians, foolishness to secular Anti-Mormons.

A recent comment on this blog by an anonymous commentator stressed how Christians have science and facts on their side, and have no need to rely upon the Spirit to discern truth. Such is not faith, nor is it even a part of Christianity. It is the pride of man to believe they can "know" what is true through study. Worse, this type of rationalism is precisely why the formerly "Christian" nations of Europe have now "converted" to various forms of existentialism, mysticism and self-awareness.

For the "Wisdom of God is foolishness". Interestingly, Paul's use of the word "Foolishness" is derived from the Greek word "musterion", normally translated as "mystery", meaning something which is revealed to those initiated into a system of thinking. In Paul's writings, mysteries are things which are delivered by the Spirit or Church leaders to new members. "Wisdom" of man is that which is only discerned by rational deduction by men, and has no connection to divine inspiration. Thus we see many of the great scholars in Biblical studies either losing their faith (such as Bart Ehrman or William Dever), or being attacked by fellow-Christians for acknowledging the problems in the traditional interpretation of Biblical doctrine, such as the false doctrines around the inerrancy of scripture, the supposed monotheism of Biblical teachings, or the lack of archeological support for almost everything in the first 6 books of the Old Testament.

I believe the Bible is true on its own merits, and not on any imposed temporary rational observations which are more sacred to their defenders than the communication between God and man the Bible illustrates.

So I am happy to declare my beliefs to be completely foolish, irrational and subjective. Exactly in the Biblical model.

Lambs to the Slaughter

2009-12-20T14:33:00.000-08:00

OK, let's get the livestock folks involved here. I don't have a great deal of experience slaughtering lambs, but my experience watching it on TV is that if a lamb had digits and an opposable thumb, they would pull out a gun and fight, as they do struggle when they are confined preparatory to being killed.

The idea of going off "like a lamb to the slaughter" comes from their complete lack of fighting as they are taken to their final doom. Just another walk. They don't scream for a ram to come head butt someone.

Now this may seem silly, but it actually goes to the heart of the concept of trying to defend loved ones yet surrendering your own life. Joseph Smith was free, but surrendered himself to a highly biased, antagonistic representative of the Law who took him to a place known to be hostile to Joseph. He carried no weapon, put up no fight. In fact, he restrained the saints from trying to protect him.

That he was handed a gun, which he did fire and apparently wounded several of the attackers, who killed his brother. His brother had a gun in his pocket, which he did not use, nor did Joseph grab it and attempt to fire it. Apparently in the midst of the assault, he realized sacrificing his life, by going to the window, would draw the fire away from his two surviving friends.

Hmm, sacrificing oneself, without a weapon when one is loaded and available...

This was a martyrdom. He did fight to defend his friends, and then gave up when he realized his continued efforts would simply lead to the same fate as his brother. They would be killed too, and the story would not be accurately told about the death of the two leaders of the Church.

John Taylor did get the details about the death of some of the attackers at the hands of Joseph Smith, but he reports that it was something he was told, not had first hand knowledge.

I always find it amazing that the Mormons are accused of things like blood atonement and taking revenge, having Danites, etc. But what happens when their leader is killed? Nothing. Less than nothing. They don't even fight for their own homes. Within a year they would be driven out of the town they paid for with cash and blood, the sweat of many, the death of not a few in creating Nauvoo. Hundreds then die out on the plains in Winter Quarters (estimated at 500 people), and still the Mormons don't attack.

Joseph Smith, as a leader, was never known to attack those who attacked him. When Mormon leaders marched from Ohio to Missouri in 1834 because of abuses of members in Missouri, Joseph dissolved the troop before engaging in any contact or trouble. The lesson was not lost on the future leaders in the company of the Camp.

So remember, a lamb goes to the slaughter without a fight. But try to grab it and hold it to put a bullet in its head, and its going to put up a ruckus as best it can. It is the going part which is described in the phrase. We know that some of the early Christians allowed themselves to be arrested and fed to the lines because of their faith. But to say they didn't slap the lions on the nose as they ate them is just a fantasy. Those Christians are martyrs, even if they fought the moment of death with their hands. I suppose the occasional lucky gouge to the eye of a lion or working in groups to fight for as much life extension as possible or to protect loved ones does, by the standards of anti-Mormons, also disqualify those martyrs.

Seriously, was there any possibility at the time of the assault on Carthage Jail that Joseph and his comrades had any possibility they would survive? No, none. How did that come about?

The surrender by Joseph Smith to authorities whom he knew were going to kill him. We don't have any other statement of Joseph Smith saying he was going like a lamb to the slaughter. Just this time. And when he surrendered, he was unarmed, able to run, but resigned to his fate. So he surrendered to certain death without so much as raising his hand in defense.

Tell me again why this is not a martyrdom?

Cowardly Liars

2009-12-10T22:27:00.000-08:00

Those good Christians who write into my blog and call me or other folks names have finally helped me to see the light. Those assaults on my character and the characters of others have no place in Christian dialog. So as of right this moment, any person posting a comment on my blog who in any way says disparaging things about someone else under a guise of anonymity will not have their information posted.

I realize they may have other things to do, and I am not saying they cannot speak their mind, or be insulting, if that makes them grow as a Christian. I just won't let anyone do their own version of Shawn McCraney's School of Strawman Boxing any longer.

Peace,
Bob

Lies, Darn Lies and Shawn McCraney

2009-12-08T21:51:00.000-08:00

Little things make life worthwhile. I noticed this week that Heart of the Matter did not post last weeks show, despite folks I know who called the station and were told it would be out in 48 hours or less. Before tonight's show I sort of laughed and joked to myself that it was because of what a jerk Shawn was towards me and other LDS callers last week.

And then I tuned in for his monologue tonight. He started by defending what a jerk he had been, noting the folks he was rude to deserved it.

Then he launched on me. I literally started laughing, and then arguing, and then contemplating legal action. I will keep my options open on that. But here is something without dispute:

Shawn McCraney is a liar.

Shawn accused me of lying to his call screener last week. Not true. I told her exactly who I was. She did not ask me if I had ever called before. But that is a "he said, she said" thing, and unless we locate her notes, it would be impossible to prove.

But he then said I called evangelical Christians "God's broken toys." He said look it up, I had said it, or something to that effect. I never have used that phrase at any time in my life, let alone in an argument with Evangelicals.

Now, with all due respect to Shawn's feeble, childish and one-sided attack, he then out did his childish fit-of-an-attack with a transparently self-aggrandizing mini-sermon wherein he said I was from Fruit Heights, UT. Of course, I am not. I don't live in that county. In fact, had he actually spoken with his call screener and looked at her notes, he would have seen my phone number and a note that I live in South Jordan, UT.

Like it said on his TV monitor and the television screen during the call.

"What a maroon."

He also repeated his erroneous statement that Israel was not allowed under the Law to own Israelite slaves. His says it with such conviction. Good liars are like that.

2 If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
3 If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he be married, then his wife shall go out with him.
4 If his master give him a wife, and she bear him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
5 But if the servant shall plainly say: I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free;
6 then his master shall bring him unto G-d, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.
7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath espoused her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed; to sell her unto a foreign people he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
9 And if he espouse her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10 If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out for nothing, without money. (Jewish Bible, Exodus 21:2-11)

For lots of reading on the subject, see H. L. Elleson, “The Hebrew Slave: A Study in Early Israelite Society,” EvQ 45 (1973): 30-35; N. P. Lemche, “The Manumission of Slaves – The Fallow Year – The Sabbatical Year – The Jobel Year,” VT 26 (1976): 38-59, and “The ‘Hebrew Slave,’ Comments on the Slave Law – Ex. 21:2-11,” VT 25 (1975): 129-44. These came from the entry for Ex 21:2 at the NetBible.org website. An Evangelical source. Not LDS. So they are not trying to make Shawn look bad. He does that on his own.

I suppose it is true I am boring to Shawn, since he can't effectively argue with me. Also, I do have a few videos out there.

Did anyone else notice that after he got done running me down, he tried to make it sound like he was going to address the issue of Elijah Abel's ordination being revoked by Joseph Smith, as asserted by Harold B. Lee. I may have missed the General Conference session where LDS apostles were decreed infallible in matters of historic LDS trivia. Still, he avoided actually providing any support of his assertion, since he asserts that Joseph Smith was a racist. Read his statements around his presidential campaign. Read the editorials. Read his statement about blacks and all people worshiping together in the temple.

Elijah Abel's grave stone is here, and was dedicated by an LDS apostle. And given we have the ordination statements for Elder Abel, we know it is correct.

Making Shawn not just mistaken, but ignorant.

I think Shawn is a lying, deceptive and self-aggrandizing peacock. But he does provide good material.

Are Mormons Christians? Nearly Everyone Says Yes

2009-12-05T21:31:00.000-08:00

This is a survey found in Christianity Today. Please go there to read the entire article.

Are Mormons Christian? How Christian groups answer the question?

All Americans
No 31%
Don't know 17%
Yes 52%

Evangelical Protestants
No 45%
Don't know 15%
Yes 40%

Mainline Protestants
No 23%
Don't know 15%
Yes 62%

Black Protestants
No 30%
Don't know 27%
Yes 43%

Catholics
No 29%
Don't know 19%
Yes 52%
Copyright © 2009 Christianity Today.

Interesting that the only group who has a majority saying "No, Mormons are not Christian" are Evangelicals, and even there it is 45% say no and 40% say yes. To use their analysis about LDS beliefs, I guess their little group has a corner on truth the other 210 million Americans have missed.

Quack, Quack, Duck, Duck. What's That? Shawn McCraney Not Engaging Again

2009-12-01T19:57:00.000-08:00

I was surprised tonight to call into Shawn McCraney's show, and actually get on air. Shawn accused me of lying by saying I was a first time caller. I was never asked, and I gave the call screener my first and last name, my phone number and the city I was calling from. I just followed Shawn's model of they didn't ask if I was banned, so I didn't tell.

Anyway, Shawn proved once again how shallow and judgmental he is about issues. I seriously feel sorry for his wife, and that could explain why she has not left the LDS Church, given that he is impossible to interact with if thinks he knows something.

The subject tonight was racism in the LDS Church. He erroneously taught that Elijah Abel, the first AFrican American to hold the Melchisedek priesthood, was stripped of his priesthood. Not only was that false, but his son was ordained an elder in 1900 (I said 1905 on the air, even I make mistakes), and his grandson was ordained an elder in 1935. Shawn was oblivious, and instead re-read the 1961 statement by Harold B. Lee saying it was a mistake for Abel to have been ordained, and it was undone. Elder Lee was wrong, which is really no big deal, since we have no doctrine of infallibility. Shawn then hung up on me after yelling over the top of me that Elder Lee was a prophet, seer and revelator, as if that makes someone infallible. That is not LDS doctrine, no matter how loud Shawn yells.

Anyway, the Biblically based illiterate stated that Israel was allowed to own slaves because they had to be from outside their faith, and could not be from among the People of God. That is such beautiful doctrine. It would be better if it were true.

I suppose since he doesn't believe in keeping the commandments, he doesn't read Exodus 20 with the 10 Commandments, and therefore is unaware of Exodus 21 which outlines all the rules for owning Hebrew slaves.

I can hardly wait for next year, the brilliant exegesis ahead will be worthy of conversion. Can you just see Shawn ignoring the grammar of John 1:1 (he already did that during his other weekly show)? His inability to correctly explain the context of Isaiah 43:10, or the historical and theological context of Ps 82 or Ps 110 or Deut 32:8-9.

I just laugh to think Shawn characterizes me as "deceptive" when he goes on TV with less than half the truth every week. Mormonism may be false, but if the yardstick is the Bible, then Shawn is 'falser', given the non-stop contradictions of the Bible.

Is The Heart Really That Desparately Wicked?

2009-11-15T11:54:00.000-08:00

9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jer 17:9

This is the poster child verse used by critics and anti-Mormons of the promise to receive a spiritual witness of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon or other truths.

The two main verses uniquely used by Latter-day Saints to push us to seek the Spirit and revelation in our lives are probably as follows:

Moro 10:3-5
3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

D&C 9:7-9
7 Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.
8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.
9 But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.

Now, lest the anti's think the Mormons are the only ones who think the witness of the Spirit is something physical, here is an excerpt from Netbible's commentary for Rom 8:16:

"In sum, Rom 8:16 seems to be secure as a text in which the believer’s assurance of salvation is based on the inner witness of the Spirit. The implications of this for one’s soteriology are profound: The objective data, as helpful as they are, cannot by themselves provide assurance of salvation; the believer also needs (and receives) an existential, ongoing encounter with God’s Spirit in order to gain that familial comfort.”" Here is the entire citation.

What is so controversial they spend a paragraph carefully explaining the grammar?

The Spirit himself bears witness to [fn 1] our spirit that we are God’s children.(Rom 8:16)

I have previously written elsewhere fairly extensively on this subject. It is simply an absurdity to claim the Bible does not teach that the normal manner of God to communicate with his children is something other than tangible feelings communicated to men, typically described as the heart.

We have the citation of Romans 8:16 above with comments by the non-LDS translator explaining that the witness described there is an existential. That means something they actually experience, something which exists.

But let's turn to the Bible, and specifically to Jeremiah. Jeremiah uses the word "heart" 52 times. So here comes something not shocking to anyone who has actually read Jeremiah: He almost always uses it in a positive context (such as turning from an evil heart to a good heart, or having a good heart, or talking about God's heart), but there are 16 instances where the heart is described as evil. That this is about people who are of evil intentions and not the state of all humans is pretty obvious:

Jer 29:13
13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Jer 24:7
7 And I will give them an heart to know me, that I am the LORD: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God: for they shall return unto me with their whole heart.

Jer 15:16
16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.

What about that whole "burning heart" thing in Luke? Check Jeremiah first:

Jer 20:9
9 Then I said, I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name. But his word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay.

What about elsewhere in the Bible, how is an open mind received, or how does God communicate to people?

2 Chr 34:27
27 Because thine heart was tender, and thou didst humble thyself before God, when thou heardest his words against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, and humbledst thyself before me, and didst rend thy clothes, and weep before me; I have even heard thee also, saith the LORD.

Ps 119:11
11 ¶ Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
Ps 119:58
58 ¶ I intreated thy favour with [my] whole heart: be merciful unto me according to thy word.
Prov 23:12
12 ¶ Apply thine heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge.

Of course, it is worth asking who gave Solomon his wisdom, and where was it communicated to him?

2 Chr 9:23
23 And all the kings of the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom, that God had put in his heart.

So let's start to wrap this up, as it is obvious that God does speak to our heart, and it is not always a false or deceptive spirit talking to us, though we can deceive ourselves.

Mal 2:2
2 If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart.

Luke 24:32
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

The footnote in the Netbible says of Luke 24:32

87 tn This is a collective singular use of the term καρδία (kardia), so each of their hearts were burning, a reference itself to the intense emotion of their response.

1 Cor 2:14
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

How are the things of God discerned? Spiritually. So what does discerned mean? Judge by investigation. How does one spiritually "judge by investigation"? Here are multiple translations:

NET Bible 1Cor 2:14 The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
NIV 1Co 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
NASB 1Co 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
NLT 1Co 2:14 But people who aren’t Christians can’t understand these truths from God’s Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them because only those who have the Spirit can understand what the Spirit means.
MSG 1Co 2:14 The unspiritual self, just as it is by nature, can't receive the gifts of God's Spirit. There's no capacity for them. They seem like so much silliness. Spirit can be known only by spirit--God's Spirit and our spirits in open communion.
BBE 1Co 2:14 For the natural man is not able to take in the things of the Spirit of God: for they seem foolish to him, and he is not able to have knowledge of them, because such knowledge comes only through the Spirit.
NRSV 1Co 2:14 Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
NKJV 1Co 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them , because they are spiritually discerned.

So...is there anyone unclear on how the things of God are understood? If it was just a matter, as Shawn McCraney represents, of looking at physical evidence and determining it is true, anyone could do that. Paul says that is not the case. Spirit to spirit revelation is how one comes to know of spiritual things.

1 Cor 12:3 ...no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

If not by spirit to spirit communication, then what is the way which is not understood by those without the Spirit?

In the end, we find out that the heart of the unrepentant, wicked and proud people are in fact incapable of understanding the Spirit, but it is not because EVERYONE is beyond experiencing the things of the Spirit.

Eph 4:17-23
17 ¶ This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
20 But ye have not so learned Christ; 21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: 22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

Saying that all are in possession of desperately wicked hearts and that God does not communicate through the medium of feelings is thoroughly refuted by even a cursory examination of the Bible, and is embarrassingly so for those who actually study the context of passages such as the constantly perverted passage out of Jeremiah.

Of course, bringing this up is almost a vanity blog, since the most vocal critics are the least likely to receive by the Spirit the witness contained in the passages mentioned here.

Lust, Motives and Salvation for Shawn McCraney (and others)

2009-11-10T11:59:00.000-08:00

But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt 5:28)

This doesn't really sound to me like justification that all men are obviously adulterers because they are all gawking at women to have sex with them. Indeed, it is the opposite intention. It is not enough to simply not have sex with women with whom you are not married, but your heart must be true to your spouse, and have no desires to anyone else.

Shawn's justification, and he says it every time the issue of his past sins are brought up, is that everyone lusts after women. It's as natural as breathing. Some have stepped up to Shawn's defense, saying he is just not expressing himself well.

I think that is pure bunk.

Shawn went out of his way last week to indicate that he still is very much an unrepentant sinner. Lest I be accused of inaccurately paraphrasing him, here is a transcript of a portion of his monologue:

Shawn McCraney, the man sitting right in front of you, right now, here, on the stage now, is, not was, is, a selfish alcoholic, he is a prescription drug addict, he is a rabid adulterer, a sexual deviant, and a violent man. If you need to see me in my flesh as anything else, you've got your wires crossed. And if you want me to reassure you of anything otherwise, it's not going to happen. Right now in my body, in my flesh and bone, live all things vile.

I have never written anything this harsh about Shawn.

Notice he said that he "is, not was, is" still the same man inside he has always been. This could not be any clearer of a statement of what separates Shawn from both the God of the Bible and the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. The God of the Bible explicitly heals the heart of these motives, and commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30) that is they must turn their mind, learn to hate the thing they loved, change their motives and stop committing the act.

The good person out of the good treasury of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasury produces evil, for his mouth speaks from what fills his heart. Luke 6:45

3 ¶ Commit thy works unto the LORD, and thy thoughts shall be established. Prov 16:3

Throw away all your sins you have committed and fashion yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why should you die, O house of Israel? 32 For I take no delight in the death of anyone, declares the sovereign Lord. Repent and live! Eze 18:31-32

This is the Hebrew word "repent", and the idea is to turn away from evil, return again to God.

14 Their eyes, full of adultery, never stop sinning; they entice unstable people. They have trained their hearts for greed, these cursed children!
18 For by speaking high-sounding but empty words they are able to entice, with fleshly desires and with debauchery, people who have just escaped from those who reside in error.
19 Although these false teachers promise such people freedom, they themselves are enslaved to immorality. For whatever a person succumbs to, to that he is enslaved. 2 Pet 2:14, 18-19

"But", you say, "Shawn is not succumbing to these sins."

Yes, he is. For a man cannot be committing adultery in his heart, and not be guilty of the sin.

Jesus' way is much different. And I think these interactions over the past while between Shawn and others does illustrate the real reasons Shawn is not LDS: Ravening guilt. The very first step to repenting is recognition of a wrong, followed by a desire to cease from doing it. In drug treatment we called it hitting bottom. You can't make a person change who doesn't want to change. Temptation is that friend who hates us, but whom we love. Until we see sin as our enemy, we are destined to the reward of the sinner:

Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? (Rom 6:16)

Do not lust in your heart after her beauty or let her captivate you with her eyes (Prov 6:25)

So which is it? Does God give us commandments which are impossible to keep, but looks the other way at the sins such commandments create, or, does God provide a means to keep such commandments, and escape to righteousness?

No trial has overtaken you that is not faced by others. And God is faithful: He will not let you be tried beyond what you are able to bear, but with the trial will also provide a way out so that you may be able to endure it.(1Cor 10:13)

Shawn may just be a klutz with words, but I don't think so. Read and watch what he said. There has been no cleansing of his heart, no change of attitude toward sin. None. He said if he were to get going, he is capable of almost any sin even this day.

Such is not the way of Jesus, the teachings of the Bible, the lamp of the Spirit.

But as for the seed that landed on good soil, these are the ones who, after hearing the word, cling to it with an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with steadfast endurance. (Luke 8:15)

Now that you have purified your souls by your obedience to the truth so that you have genuine mutual love, love one another deeply from the heart.(1Pet 1:22)

Let's close with this truth, so obvious it is found in Proverbs, or those sayings so true they are considered obvious:

The one who has a perverse heart does not find good, and the one who is deceitful in speech falls into trouble.

It is not possible to be unrepentant, unconverted in heart, and be saved.

Therefore, remember from what high state you have fallen and repent! Do the deeds you did at the first; if not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place – that is, if you do not repent.(Rev 2:5)

Notice this verse teaches a fully LDS and Biblical concept: Do what is right, change your heart so to hate sin, or suffer condemnation and loss of salvation.

Shawn McCraney Strikes A Blow For Adultery

2009-11-03T19:52:00.000-08:00

Well, Jesus must love lust. According to Shawn, there is no such thing as repentance. He pointed out that he is still just as lusting after women other than his wife in his heart as he ever did 10 years ago when he was acting on that lust for other women by having (an?)affair(s?).

This just proves, again, how completely false the Gospel of McCraney is. As I have previously reported here, the very word translated as "repentance" is the idea of completely changing ones mind away from sin.

Shawn seems almost proud of being an unrepentant "sexual deviant" (his words), "right now in my body are all things vile." This is not the teachings of the Bible in the context of conversion.

Luke 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

Ps 125:4 ¶ Do good, O LORD, unto those that be good, and to them that are upright in their hearts.

Rev 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

What do you say about someone who is completely, proudly unrepentant? The Ps 125:4 verse is particularly telling, since it specifically conditions blessings upon righteous desires of the heart. So what does a guy who is still committing adultery in his heart, what blessing does that guy get?

1 Cor 6:9 ¶ Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Did the "were" hit you like a train? That is past tense, and it is because, as Paul notes, the Spirit sanctifies. The Greek word means "to purify", and is the basis of both the words "holy", as a description of God and Jesus, and "saints", as in members of God's true Church. So you were evil, but you are becoming pure and holy. Hard to see the raging desire for sin in Paul's remarks here.

2 Pet 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:

Worthiness is unimportant to Shawn. This is not what the scriptures say:

2 Thes 1:5 ¶ [Which is] a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:

2 Thes 1:11 ¶ Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of [this] calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of [his] goodness, and the work of faith with power:

His theology is contradicted everywhere in the Bible, and I tried to just note some of the brief examples.

Also, a hat tip to Walker for calling into the show and skewering Shawn in such a nice fashion. Trust me, the chance that Shawn will acknowledge the fact that the OT was actually LDS in its belief is less than zero.

Very briefly, in passing, I am not aware of any theologian or systematic theology which claims that passages such as Genesis 1:26, which say "Let us...", refer to the Trinity. Certainly no Jewish commentator believes that. I know books such as the Catholic Encyclopedia deny there are ANY examples of the Trinity in the OT.

Shawn made an outrageously funny claim about "knowing" the Bible is true. Essentially he knows it is true because he has studied it. That's it. He specifically said the testimony of the Spirit "is not feelings, but the evidence it presents". He further argued that nowhere in the Bible does it say to pray or research the truthfulness of the Bible, as it does in the Book of Mormon.

He is wrong:

1 Thes 5:19 Quench not the Spirit.
20 Despise not prophesyings.
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Does Shawn really think he can study his way into a manifestation of the Spirit and Jesus, and that he can study his way into having the Spirit dwell in us?

And it ignores the most classic explanation in scripture to tell us how we come to know scripture is true:

Luke 24:32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Well, I can only speak for myself. I don't think every man is constantly committing adultery in their hearts, because I know I don't. It is not that it makes me better than Shawn, but I think this does prove that the power of the Spirit he claims to have is far less powerful than the LDS version.

The non-Mormon McCraney Jesus may think continuing in LUST is OK, but the Jesus of the Bible doesn't find simply ceasing the act to be actual repentance:

2 Cor 7:9 Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing.
10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
11 For behold this selfsame thing, that ye sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you, yea, what clearing of yourselves, yea, what indignation, yea, what fear, yea, what vehement desire, yea, what zeal, yea, what revenge! In all things ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter.

For Shawn, stopping the sin physically is good enough. But it works death. Godly repentance and sorrow is to change your mind, and develop a zeal for the good, which leads to salvation.

It's late, but I thought Shawn was worthy of being commented about.

Jesus in Our Midst

2009-10-12T08:25:00.000-07:00

"For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matt 18:20)

Most LDS are dumbfounded when they are accused of not being Christian. Not because of an ad campaign from Salt Lake City to be more "Christian", but simply because our lives revolve around following Christ, applying his Atonement to our lives and seeking to experience more of his Spirit in our lives.

Truly, we live "Come unto Christ."

Yesterday being Fast Sunday, I decided to make notes on what people testified about in our meetings. It was extremely edifying, even if not surprising. While there were two instances where people thanked members of the congregation for various acts of kindness they had recently received, the other eight testimonies, by individuals ranging in age from 15 to 70, were all centered on their sense of love for the Savior and the atonement. A couple mentioned their belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet who restored the Gospel, but there was no hint that Joseph was anything more than the messenger of God, and certainly no expression of worship or thought that Joseph was god. Several times statements such as "the Spirit testifies to me that God lives, we are his children, and Jesus' atonement is real", were made. Expressions of feeling the Spirit were often repeated. The sense of gratitude by the youth for forgiveness of sins was expressed several times as well.

I write this because Jesus Christ swore that he would be in the midst of those who gathered together in his name. The Spirit bears witness that is true. Frankly, I have felt the Spirit at times in other churches. But I can say that I have never felt anything approaching the Spirit from people like Shawn McCraney, Rob Sivulka, the street preachers, Evidence Ministries, Mormon Research Ministries, or especially from Sandra Tanner. These people are just lost. Members of the LDS faith believe the Bible and the Spirit, which leads them to truth. People who make their living attacking the LDS or other faiths are by Biblical definition false teachers and filled with the bitterness of the devil, for the devil desires the contention they breed.

We are to contend for the faith. Not against other faiths. If you are looking for God, "Come, and see."

Leaders Fighting Amongst Themselves

2009-10-06T00:51:00.000-07:00

I remember how I was told a story about the president of the Church snubbing a group of new members. Seems he was of a different social status than they were, and it just wasn't cool. I often wonder what those members thought. Here you have a brand new Church, a relatively new, 1st generation prophet, and constant new "convenient" revelations to sort out the differences from the Bible. And the president snubs you in public.

Then one of the members of the quorum of the twelve (or fifteen, if you count everyone who was called an apostle at the time), actually called the prophet out. This junior member of the quorum of the twelve had a reputation for being a hot head, in fact was known to be super opinionated, and even wrote things the Church had to remind everyone could be misconstrued. He routinely sounded authoritative, even as he would put in the caveat "this is my opinion". He also would routinely attack traditions people brought with them from their previously traditional accepted faiths.

The Church was accused of being filled with leaders lacking faith, lying about visitations by Jesus, and even denying the traditional beliefs about God. Oh, and the errors in the revelations, don't even get me started. They constantly received new "revelations", and then would actually edit the Bible to support their "convenient" revelations. They didn't write down their supposed eyewitness accounts for 20-50 years after the events transpired, and then they were accused of colluding on those accounts. They constantly argued over which translation had errors, and some of the leaders even speculated that Jesus was married, and they explained to be "born again" meant water baptism.

Still, when the president of the Church was confronted with his bad behavior, he admitted he was wrong privately, but never wrote or publicly admitted to correct his errors about treating people so inconsiderately. How is that for perfect leadership?

Some of you by now have probably figured out exactly who I am talking about. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery? Maybe David Whitmer? Bruce R. McConkie? Or Brigham Young and Orson Pratt? No.

Peter and Paul.

Peter famously quotes Joel in his speech on the day of Pentecost. But he quotes a form not found in any Hebrew or Greek form. Paul free-style quotes the Old Testament constantly in his writings. The fight goes on until today whether the Majority Text tradition is correct or the Alexandrian texts, for the New Testament; and there are thousands of changes between the Masoretic text used for the King James Bible, and the Dead Sea Scrolls. The supposed "Q" source for the New Testament Gospel accounts of Jesus' life assume that Matthew and John did not actually experience and write down their own original thoughts, and that Matthew, Mark and Luke copied from some unnamed source for up to 90% of their content.

Peter and Paul of course argued about Peter being afraid to openly associate with the Gentile converts around the Jewish converts. Paul got into such an argument with Barnabus, they actually split up and went different directions. Peter wrote to warn the saints that Paul's writings were sometimes difficult to understand. Peter never admitted he had been chastised by Paul, as Paul describes it in Galatians. Justin Martyr explicitly explains that to be "born again" meant to be baptized in water.

Anti-Christians accused the Christian disciples of being atheists for not believing in the official version of deity. Everyone accused the Christians of stealing Jesus' body, or even that he did not actually die.

Those who do not study history, stupidly repeat it. New Revelation is never accepted as authentic by the majority of the population where it is received. No one, or almost no one, argues with the baptists, Presbyterians or even the street preachers to any great degree, about doctrine. They may not like their methods, but the lies of Hellenization and the Etruscan culture adapted to create the traditional "Christian" Jesus hundreds of years after Jesus and the Apostles passed on, are what made today's Christianity what it is.

The truth is, our leaders are very, very flawed people, and always have been. That has nothing to do with whether God is using the weak things, the imperfect things, to bring about the salvation of humankind. He does today what he has always done: Tells us to listen with our hearts, and at times hold our noses, and believe he still speaks to us. Change is inherent in following a living, speaking Christ.

Lessons Learned OUTSIDE General Conference

2009-10-05T15:38:00.000-07:00

It is funny how we can lose track of how important the big things are as we argue about the little things. At General Conference, one such point came out clearly.

I spent a lot of time discussing polygamy with the fake brides of Joseph Smith; I spent a lot of time discussing how the Bible is totally at risk if the incorrect Evangelical understanding of the Bible and the use of archaeology is applied to the Bible as Evangelicals attempt to do against the Book of Mormon. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword. The Evangelicals refused to believe that most archaeologists don't believe the historical accounts contained in Genesis through Joshua are generally "historical myths" (William Dever). So I showed up with multiple books by some of the most respected archaeologists in the world, who explicitly state that the consensus among archaeologists is those early accounts must be abandoned based on the current archaeological evidence. Their response was "wait and see, it will eventually be vindicated", which I replied, "Ditto", are you willing to withhold judgment about the Book of Mormon on the same basis? After all, there are numerous issues which have been shown correct over time in the BoM, and we have great witness testimony as to the reality of the plates.

So when speaking with a few street preachers after the 2nd Sunday Session of GC, a friend of mine was speaking with them and they didn't realize the teachings of Rev 3:21, that the saved sit on the throne with Jesus, just as God brought him onto his throne. They also denied the ongoing need for apostles or other Church officers. So I jumped in with Rev 1:6, noting that Jesus Christ has made us "kings and Priests unto God and his father". I asked them what positions these were, and what it meant. I also asked them how did they describe the positions, since the verse says he "hath made us", as in present tense, something which is already done. The two theological experts (Kevin and Mark) said, "I don't have a crown, where's my crown?" I told them if they got their act together and got into the Temple, I would tell them all about it.

It seems so obvious that I forget we are blessed with inspired teachings. The whole point of salvation is based on exaltation, which is symbolized by the kingship and priesthood ordinations. Margaret Barker made the point in her December 2008 paper on Melchizedek that the holy of holies was the place where the Melchizedek priesthood transformed men into mini Jehovahs. She points out that there were to be many Melchizedek priests, and that Psalms indicates that Jesus became the son in some form of temple, called simply the "holy mount". She notes that knowledge of the Melchizedek priesthood was well understood by early Christians and the first Temple Jews, but was lost by both second temple Jews and by modern Christianity. She asserts that the entire point of worship and religious observance is found in the symbolism and ordinances of the temple revolving around the Melchizedek priesthood. Since this comes from a non-member, it is all the more enlightening.

But temple ordinances identifying the path to exaltation is so obvious, when you recognize that exaltation, which is defined by the "second Adam", or Jesus Christ, is the restoration of mankind to the "Adamic" state, to receive all things which God has. John perfectly describes this in his Revelation: Based on faith and our commitment to Christ, so long as we have a repentant, humble nature we can be exalted on the same throne as Christ. Not replacing him or removing him, or taking over for him, but through his gift, becoming a king and a priest like him.

Anti-Mormons can scream and yell all they want about the "false Gospel" of the Mormons, but it is reminders when speaking to them at the gates of the temple why John also calls them dogs (defined as: 1) a dog; a man of impure mind, an impudent man), who have no part in the holy city. Jesus says in Rev 1:6 that he has made them Kings and Priest unto God and his Father. Since most "Christians" have no clue they are a King or a Priest, then it sort of goes without saying they have no idea who the master is who is calling.

Review of HOTM Shawn McCraney Sept 29, 2009

2009-09-29T21:40:00.000-07:00

I have put out a video review of Shawn McCraney's Heart of the Matter. Shawn is beating a deceptive dead horse. His points about polygamy in Mormonism become more and more strained each week. This week he through in for good measure his comments about people are not the children of God (ignoring Acts 17:28-29 and Hebrews 12:9). He concluded by telling the story of an LDS young man who committed suicide over guilt. Funny how Shawn said he wanted to commit suicide too, after he became a born again christian, and as he flushed his life down the drain with substance abuse. At least, that is what he notes in his book, page 68. Funny, but all of his arguments center around the idea that God reveals everything unchangeably, all at once, and not line upon line, or not that Mormons believe in continuing revelation. This is the 'stinkin thinkin' which the Jews lived with at the time of Christ.

One very insidious attach Shawn levels on all active Mormons is they will lie if it protects their faith. In debate, we call this poisoning the well. In life we call it compensating for weak arguments. Lastly, Shawn made the statement that we cannot feel the truth, facts are all that matters. Of course, this is in complete conflict with the Bible ("Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the scriptures to us?" Luke 24:29). No man can no Jesus is the Christ, expect by the Holy Spirit. That is not just a fact from scripture, it is received as a feeling. So denying feelings is to deny actually knowing Jesus Christ.

Youtube Videos Added For Review

2009-09-29T09:02:00.000-07:00

I just uploaded two videos into my answeringantimormons.com account on youtube. You can find them by going here or here. They address Keith Walker's "The Impossible Gospel of Mormonism", and a recent attack by Rob Sivulka on the LDS and Biblical doctrine of Creation. Let me know what you think.

The Believable Book of Mormon

2009-09-24T06:25:00.000-07:00

I believe the Book of Mormon to be true. I would even go further to say that by the power of the Holy Ghost, I have received the unmistakable testimony from God that it is true. I consider that a great blessing and a precious gift to have received such knowledge. When I was not committed to the Church, I did search for truth as an 18-19 year old, and I was exposed to the harshest criticisms of the Church and the Book of Mormon then available, including the Tanner's "Changing World of Mormonism" and Walter Martin's various works available back in 1979. I wasn't born a Mormon, and my family was completely inactive after having joined the LDS Church in 1976. So no one was forcing me or tricking me or coaching me. There was no guilt trip or sense of debt to anyone in the LDS Church. I had been a very good debater, I was a well educated student, and I seemed to do well on tests of ability to reason and think. So I came at the Book of Mormon with a simple desire to know if it was true, and a willingness to walk away if I found it not to be believable. I was raised Lutheran and attended many different Christian churches, so I wasn't "against" any faith or position. My best friend eventually went on to become a pastor of a Four Square Church in Idaho.

So I had an open mind. I still do, but that is getting ahead of things.

The first thing of huge import is the Book of Mormon has witnesses besides just Joseph Smith. And the closest of those witnesses all left the Church and in Joseph Smith's lifetime did not return. The two closest to Joseph Smith of the three, Oliver and Martin, later returned to the LDS Church. Oliver was actually present for angels visiting to confer the priesthood on two separate occasions.

I read how there was some talk that the witnesses, Oliver in particular, may have denied his witness. This was proposed by the Tanner's because a poem included a statement indicating Oliver may have done so, and the author said it did not matter. The Tanner's were being deceptive even publishing that, which I discovered, as the poem was reacting to a false report made about Oliver. This caused me then to become very careful in uncritically accepting as "facts" statements of critics. Sure a member of the Church published the poem and thought Oliver had denied his testimony. But it was false. Presenting responses to false statements without providing the context is to lie by omission.

I have learned the critics of the LDS faith do not feel any need to be balanced in presenting history of LDS doctrine. So I now always review their supporting information before I will accept something as factual. This is not based on just one incident. It is literally based on hundreds, maybe thousands of such interactions with both printed material and individuals.

So we have witnesses. What did they witness? Of the 11 people who are listed as witnesses in the front of the BOM, 10 actually held the plates and handled the individual pages (only David Whitmer did not). They saw the engravings, the color, the binding and lifted them to feel their weight. They did so in broad daylight. They did so in groups, usually. There is some controversy about whether two groups of four or all eight at once saw the plates. No real matter. Oliver and Martin were alone with Joseph when they handled the plates in the open.

Now the plates were actually quite heavy. Joseph let many people handle the plates and lift them while they were covered up. Maybe 16 or more people that I can count. The reports are the plates weighed between 30-60 pounds. That is not really much of a range if you lift a solid block of metal and then guess at the weight.

William Smith would later say the plates were a combination of copper and gold. All of the witnesses said they had the "appearance of gold". Moroni is quoted as saying they were "gold plates". All of these statements are consistent with a material used by Meso-American tribes called Tumbaga, which is a alloy of copper and gold, and depending upon that mixture, would have weighed about what the witnesses said the plates weighed. This is remarkable because Joseph Smith and the witnesses would have had no knowledge of Tumbaga, or its link to Central America.

Next, the text of the Book of Mormon is miraculous in its consistency. The work done by Royal Skousen on restoring the original text of the Book of Mormon is amazing on many levels. But what we find is a document which is not just the helter-skelter dictations of someone trying to crank out a book. It is consistent and complicated.

The text has had several in-depth studies done on "word printing". It is obvious from these studies (Hilton in 1997, Todd K. Moon, 2006, "Document Author
Classification using Generalized Discriminant Analysis")the Book of Mormon was not composed by Joseph Smith, only translated by him. This makes the case for the Book of Mormon being from Joseph Smith's mind extremely unlikely. Hilton's study also disqualified Solomon Spaulding and Oliver Cowdery. If not these folks, then who wrote it? The studies simply state there are unique author traits in the texts, so the authors are unknown. The most logical answer is they are those individuals whose names are on the books within the Book of Mormon, barring evidence of other composers.

But if there was other authors, where are there notes, books or for that matter their statements? Unlike the pictures we usually see in Sunday School of Joseph Smith behind a curtain with his finger on the plates translating, we know he actually was almost always in the open, initially wearing a breastplate and the Urim and Thummim attached to the breastplate in a sort of weird pair of glasses, then later putting his head in a hat with a seer stone. Those who commented, specifically Emma who was there, said he had no papers or books, and she would have seen them. I once challenged Dan Vogel, as an ex-LDS critic and perhaps the most scholarly critic of LDS history, to memorize 3 days work of the Isaiah passages, and then quote them back. That would be about 27 pages. Of course, you don't get to have a Bible around, since we know they did not have one present during the translation according to the witnesses present. And we will then make allowances for changes to the text at the same rate as Joseph Smith's dictation amends the Isaiah sections. Vogel declined, saying Joseph must have had a Bible. Really? You have witnesses present who say he did not, and your position is they are lying? Wouldn't Martin Harris and Oliver, both ex-communicated and humiliated at their leaving of the Church, mentioned this, even if false, to attack Joseph? I say even if false because they could have made the claim and why would they have cared, they were no longer in the Church? Because they knew there were lots of witnesses who saw how it was done. Vogel and the critics have no case that Joseph Smith actually wrote or copied the Book of Mormon from someone else' work. This evidence is very much on a par with the physical reality that there were gold plates. Because we can test the text and we have witnesses. And the witnesses obviously told other people, or else folks would not have constantly be trying to steal the non-existent plates he was translating.

The next item is the content of the text itself. As my friend Steve Smoot has pointed out on several occasions, Joseph Smith did not realize how "Hebrew" it was. He actually tried to edit out the "Hebrewisms" from later editions. However, we now know these unusual and non-English-style sentence structures are good Hebrew. And in his lifetime, Joseph Smith never claimed such a style to be present in the Book of Mormon. He doesn't say "See, there is Chiasmus and Hebrew sentence forms all over in it, proving it is Middle Eastern in its origin or influence." No. He goes the other way. Edit them out after the fact. Never comments on them. Hmm, its like he doesn't recognize they are there. Like he was just a translator or something...

Much has been made of the some "4,000 changes to the Book of Mormon". I always thought that was important. Until we looked closer. Editorially, if you count every comma, spelling and sentence structure change, Royal Skousen says there are closer to 100,000 such changes in a text of 400,000+ words. Is this a big deal? No. First, out of all of the changes, 99.5% were strictly to make the text more readable and are scatter across a dozen editions. Secondly, there are at most 50 some changes which could be considered significant in terms of doctrine for those not believing in prophetic direction. The addition of "son of..." to "God" in term describing Jesus, or the "pure" for "white" change describing the change to come to the Lamanites. How does this compare to the Bible? Well, there are at least 250,000, perhaps as many as 400,000 variations to the New Testament text in terms of spelling changes, word additions or deletions and word order changes. Since they did not include punctuation (that is added to translations, it is not in the Greek). Some of the changes are rather important. The last half of the last chapter of Mark, for example, is not considered by most textual scholars to be original to the text. 1John 5:7-8, the only text to fairly explicitly teach the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible, is nearly universally rejected by scholars as a late (300 AD)addition to the text. Jesus being ministered to by an angel in the Garden of Gethsamane is not found in the earliest manuscripts, but is quoted by Justin Martyr, and found in later editions. The commentary on changes sold by United Bible Societies, which publishes the most widely accepted version of the Greek NT, lists over 3,800 changes they feel merit comment, out of which about 50 or 60 are such they admit they don't know what should be included in the text. The Book of Mormon suffers no such issue as to holes in the text.

The Old Testament does not fare much better. The main reason there are few variations in the Hebrew text of the Bible is because, (drum roll please), in the 10th Century AD the Rabbi's of the world met to decide what was the original text, and they destroyed all copies from earlier times. Fortunately we got the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, and they became widely available in the past 10-15 years. We now know there are thousands of variations in the text. Actually, tens of thousands. Some entire verses were left out. Some verses changed to hide the original belief that there were many real gods (Compare Duet 32:8-9 in the King James Bible and in the NRSV). The King James Bible followed the tradition, edited text from the 10th Century AD. We know now the Greek and Samarian versions contain variants which legitimately belonged to the original OT.

So do all these variations matter? I don't really think so if you recognize that people are involved in passing the text along, and God can restore it as he decides to make it available. You can still find God in the Bible. He just never tells us to pray to know the Bible is true. As we can now tell, for obvious reasons. He still, however, instructs us to study it.

Another example of things worth considering in the Book of Mormon are all the things which Joseph Smith "got wrong", which turned out he got correct. Examples such as Alma being a man's name. The existence of Nahom, and it being on the trade route in Arabia. Jerusalem being the location of Jesus' birth. Barley being in the New World. Cement in Central America. The kinds of "swords" used by Native Americans. A great list of these are found in a talk by Matt Roper, now on FAIR's website.

Brant Gardner's work on the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon's Meso American setting is equally compelling. There is a lot of information, and links to videos, etc, at this web page.

I think those are probably the big ones. That is, except for the witness of the Spirit. I would lie if I said there have not been issues which troubled me to some degree as I made my way through the various criticisms of the LDS Church. So it was that my Spiritual experiences, after I had studied out the issues of the Book of Mormon to the degree I was able, helped me wait to see the big picture. If the Tanners or Walter Martin repeatedly distort history because they think the bigger cause is to get people out of the Church, rather than being accountable ministers to God, then I don't have to panic when I read their latest attack. I also need to have the intellectual maturity to realize that what passes as normal or abnormal today is completely irrelevant to early LDS history or Bible or Book of Mormon history. Faith is complicated in that way, even as it is simple. I need to realize God wants me to follow him in order to obtain a witness of his work (John 8:31-32). It is only by the Holy Spirit, not by reading and studying, one can come to know Jesus is real (1Cor 12:3). For those troubled by history or science or even doctrine, I can't prove anything. But I think the case FOR the Book of Mormon and the Gospel of Jesus Christ restored in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is good enough to be worthy of exercising faith, and then not forgetting to be true to that witness.

Dan Peterson said in a talk, after evaluating the fact that Joseph Smith apparently never needed to actually see the plates to translate them, that the purpose of the plates is the proverbial thumb in the eye of critics. You cannot reasonably prove the LDS faith is false unless you can provide a plausible case against the existence and content of the plates. The plates are a historical reality. That is what the evidence says. Therefore the Church was restored. Joseph Smith was a prophet, right down to Thomas Monson today. The plates are enough to cause us to exercise a particle of faith, and come and follow. That particle, when nurtured, will grow into a full blown, saving witness. (Alma 32:26-43; Luke 8:4-18)

It is my desire this brief exposition can provide a context for those seeking evidence for why they should believe in Jesus Christ and the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

True Religion is...

2009-09-11T08:40:00.000-07:00

I went on a tour last night of LDS Welfare Square, and had a chance to be exposed to so many of the wonderful programs carried out by the LDS Church for their fellow men.

Scripture says

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world. James 1:27

The work done in Salt Lake City, for example, in finding jobs is mostly for non-LDS people. In fact, about 80% of the people placed in jobs through LDS Employment services are not LDS.

Most of the food stuffs distributed go to non-LDS.

The food bank in Utah gets huge contributions from the LDS Church. Even most of the other churches in Salt Lake City get some or most of their foods for their programs from the LDS Church.

One prominent non-LDS minister toured Welfare Square and after witnessing all that goes on asked the director, "Do you know of any other religion that has a program similar to this?" The director replied, "No, I don't", to which the minister said "Neither do I", and he said he looked away somewhat embarrassed, no doubt for having preached what an evil, unChristlike faith those Mormons are.

It is very true that anyone can be a critic. The criteria for being a Christian may be somewhat intellectual, but a real Christian is working to relieve the suffering of their fellow-men, whether of their faith or not.

As James goes on to note, for someone to tell the hungry or destitute to "Depart, in peace, be ye warmed and filled" and not hand them food is to deny the faith. He uses this as the very example of how faith without works is dead.

The true church of Jesus Christ would work together with its members to make sure no member who ever asked for help would lack for a job, food or shelter, if they were willing to work for it, even if that "work" is nothing more than licking stamps or reading the scriptures to children. And for those unable to help themselves due to mental illness or other problems, then Christian charity would find a way to provide unconditionally for their physical needs.

Sorry, but the LDS Church is the only CHURCH which follows this basic Biblical charge. There are a few good people of all faiths who try to help out in their individual ways, but the fact that all those Evangelicals, Born Again Mormons and other supposed Christians can't find time to spend even 10 hours a year unconditionally working with no expectation of reward or recognition is perhaps the greatest evidence of all of which of all the churches in the world is truly led by He who taught the parable of the Good Samaritan.

You remember that story, right? (Luke 10:25-37) It is the story of a man scorned by "true believers" as being theologically in a false cult of belief, who nevertheless was the only one willing to do God's real work of pastoring for a man unable to help himself, who was not of his own faith.

I am proud to be called a heretic by that modern day incarnation of the same group who excluded those with a living and not just a lip service faith. You know, the one cited by Christ, and James, as pure religion. Remember, the parable of the Good Samaritan was given to answer the question of what it meant to fulfill the two great Commandments: Love God and Love your Neighbor. The question asked, by a person seeking to justify his theological purity as sufficient, was who is our neighbor. Since the lawyers regularly gave offerings and had plenty of community visibility, the question of doing selfless, risky and anonymous service to anyone in need is pretty powerful.

Powerful, because it means that being saved by Grace through faith means you must, in fact, do the good works and not just think about them, for which we are created. As I have pointed out before, Paul says in Ephesians we are saved by grace through faith and not of works, but that we are created to do the good works of God, not those self serving useless attempts at saving ourselves.

Born Agains just don't get it: Loving our neighbors and he who loses his life will save it mean that faith and the good works which God gives us a desire to do, but upon which desire we must act (Phil 2:12-13) is how we work out our own salvation.

Shawn McCraney Burning Heart 2009

2009-09-06T07:21:00.000-07:00

Very briefly, Saturday night I attended the annual "Burning Heart 2009" event sponsored by Shawn McCraney. It was held at a pavilion in Salt Lake City's Sugar House Park, and they had a big tent and 6 or 7 small pop-up gazebo style tents around it. I got there at about 7pm, just after their bands had finished playing (I guess, since I wasn't there, but they had two bands and they did not play after I got there). I counted cars and people, and there were approximately 125-150 cars and between 300-400 people. I was speaking with one guy I know, and he said "What do you think? 3,000 people, pretty amazing." I said, "What?". I told him I had done a rough count, and there was about 300 folks at the time, and I figured with people walking around, maybe another 100. No way there was 500 people there, let alone 1,000 or 3,000.

One person remarked to me they found Shawn's preaching to be very weak, since it was focused on negative, anti-other-religious attacks. In his 30 minute or so talk at the end of the event, he mentioned Mormonism and Joseph Smith and Thomas Monson at least 20 times, as well as other leaders like Mary Eddy Baker, Gandhi and others several times. Being against something will only carry you so far.

As if he read my notes on how to preach incompletely, he quoted all of the scriptures I list in a response to a question in my "Shawn McCraney: Still Ducking " blog post. And just as I said they do. For example, he quoted 'Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done', ignoring the rest of the verse. By baptism and the holy ghost he saved us, to maintain good works.

I spoke with his assistant Kevin, with whom I have a good relationship. He asked what I thought of Romans 3:4 Let god be true, and every man a liar. He said it meant the philosophies of men are all lies, and we should only believe the Bible. I said if that were truly the interpretation, we would have to throw out Paul's other letters and the rest of the New Testament, since he would be speaking about the Old Testament. Beyond that, the trinity is completely a man-made construct, and would need to be thrown out. Kevin is a good guy, but he is not willing to engage in an in-depth discussion of the implications of things like archaeology and the Bible, including the now widely, even majority, accepted view by Christian scholars that the Old Testament Hebrew faith was in fact polytheistic in the sense of believing in the existence of multiple real divine beings or gods. Thus LDS beliefs concerning god are conceptually closer to the Biblical teachings than the unknowable "mystery" called the trinity.

I spent quite a bit of time speaking with Russ East, who runs a local Christian radio station. He is a nice guy, ex-LDS, and we discussed at some length the imperative nature of knowing who God is. He believes that we Mormons are basically brainwashed by our belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet into a false belief of who God and Christ are. I told him he could not reject Paul and be a Christian, just as he could not reject Moses or for that matter Joseph Smith or Thomas S. Monson, since Jesus himself said he would reject those who rejected his servants (John 13:20, Mark 6:11). We discussed the possibility of having he and I sit down and talk about some LDS topics, and record it and put it on the air. Since he is very much not into debating style 'gotcha' tactics, I think it could be worthwhile. We will see how that develops. He said he would call me in a few weeks to discuss it.

As I was talking with a guy I know from the dinners the Heart of the Matter audience goes to, Shawn walked by and good naturedly shouted my last name, and smiled. About 20 minutes later I saw him as I was starting to drive off in my car, as he was in his car returning from someplace. So I didn't get to speak with him. But Burning Heart 2009 reaffirmed to me why Heart of the Matter is really nothing more than just a typical, unsustainable attack on Mormonism, because being against something will never get you to Christ. And they are not particularly effective, considering they get an hour of free TV time broadcast in the heart of Mormon country where half of the Mormons are not practicing their faith. If they really were making a difference, they would have thousands of people now. Even if this gathering represented just 5% of all the people Shawn has influenced, which I am certain it does not based on the calls into his show and the number of people who come to this blog, which is the #1 Google search response for Shawn McCraney's name, we are talking at most there are a few thousand people. At most. And they don't last, in terms of their commitment to support such a ministry. That is evident in Shawn's recent appeals for money, and his statements they have raised just a fraction of what he needs.

These people are largely unwilling to submit themselves to God's will, feeling that obeying someone who is in a leadership role in a church organization is equivalent to recognizing them as God. They don't have any kind of grasp of the meaning of scripture.

For their part, Adam's Road seems to recognize this. They played at this event. They have changed their music away from the "attack Mormonism" front to write songs based only on scripture. So while they add their "testimonies" about coming out of Mormonism, I think they have realized that just doesn't sell a lot of records over the long haul. They showed up in a luxurious 40+ foot customized motorhome with their name on it, but nothing about being ex-Mormon. That means some organization with money, probably their music label, has decided to steer them where the money is. And, I would like to add, I enjoyed the couple of songs I heard them play last week on HOTM. Nice lyrics and sweet music. But their theology...well, these guys' comprehension of New Testament doctrine couldn't probably get them undefensively past a conversation of Mark 16:16, let alone Hebrews 5:8-9, 2 Peter 1:4 or John 1:1-18. So I like their music. It is sort of like listening to Michael Jackson's old hits, and not caring about how strange he became. They are separate.

Is UTLM Becoming MRM?

2009-09-03T15:20:00.000-07:00

For sometime, there has been a lot of "volunteering" at UTLM by Bill McKeever, Aaron and the gang from Mormonism Research Ministries. So I am guessing they will shortly announce plans for Sandra Tanner's retirement and MRM to take over.

Funny, but both organizations seem to have so little regard for reporting what Mormonism actually believes, this should be a good hook-up in terms of continuity of content created.

All of Shawn McCraney's "Lies"

2009-08-19T10:35:00.000-07:00

A person has requested I post a response to all of Shawn McCraney's "lies", because the person finds that when he checks out Shawn's allegations, Shawn is right.

Really?

Well, I don't want to necessarily characterize what comes out of Shawn's mouth as lies. I think some things are. When a person is told the truth and insists on clinging to his erroneous position, and restates it as if it is unchallenged, that I think is a lie. Such as telling people his position on "worship" is grammatically correct or that he welcomes correction if he is wrong about his understanding, and then writes to me directly and says he has no interest in my documentation, and goes on TV to say he was pretty much correct.

That is a lie.

Saying that Mormons never call in to challenge his "facts". That is a lie. He refuses to let people such as myself on the air any more.

Saying he has always been open about the circumstances of his excommunication is a lie. Read his book, pages 108-109. Read his official website. He never mentions that he was excommunicated for abuse of pharmaceuticals and adultery, only for apostasy. He only came clean when Ed got on the phone three weeks ago and put him on the spot about it. He often says in an joking manner that he has committed nearly every sin imaginable, which is one way of diffusing questions about specific questions and avoiding therefore needing to specfically respond.

It is a lie that an adulterer can be a pastor, according to the Bible. As the NEB renders 1 Tim 3:2, a bishop must be blameless:

Faithful to his one wife.

It is a lie that one can attack other faiths, argue with their membership, and be considered a pastor, according to the Bible. (1Tim 3:1-7) This is not a point of interpretation, it is what the Bible explicitly teaches. So claiming to be a pastor, and being a recent convert to the born-again philosophy both explicitly violate the teachings of the Bible. So he may not be a liar on some aspect here, but he certainly cannot claim to be a real pastor.

It is an absolute lie that Joseph Smith got the idea for polygamy out of lust. In fact, he apparently became aware of the doctrine of polygamy no later than 1831. To say he used it to satisfy his lust, when the absolute earliest plural marriage (and we have no evidence of sex outside of a "marriage" or, for that matter, inside of most all of his plural marriages)is the 1834 alleged marriage to Fanny Alger. There is no direct evidence of sex in this relationship, only a sort of "where there is smoke, there must be fire" acceptance that the basis of rumors must have some truth. Non-LDS historian Lawrence Foster does not believe there was a marriage, though he thinks there is evidence for sex. Why? Basically because a second hand (at best) account by Oliver Cowdery implies such, though does not explicitly say so. The next time it comes up is in 1838, and Lucinda was married and continued to live with her husband (thus a polyandrous marriage, not all that good for a lecherous dude going for babes, I would say).

Oh, and did we mention that in a world of no birth control, and where Emma had 9 children in 17 years, we have NOT ONE child born who has been shown to be Joseph Smith's. In fact, the child Fawn Brodie insisted MUST be Joseph Smith's love child because of rumor and photographs, has now been genetically demonstrated to NOT be his child! So rumors and photos not withstanding, sometimes rumors are just rumors. In Joseph Smith's case, they have never been proven otherwise.

It is a lie that in Mormon culture "Women have always been treated as chattel" HOTM July 14, 2009. That is in fact completely false. The list of firsts for LDS women, and the emphasis on educational development, not to mention the pioneering granting of the right to vote 2nd of all USA states, demonstrates the absurdity, and lie, of such a statement. McCraney's rejection of the doctrine of polygamy leads him to apparently see everything as sinister which the LDS faithful do.

While he may not be lying about the first vision's contents, his presentation is so confused and errant, it is hard to know where to start. Here are his notes.

For example, it is a lie, or is it just stupidity, you judge, that the handwritten 1832 account of the first vision was written 18 years after the event. Doesn't that put the First Vision back to 1814? But that is what Shawn said and wrote in his notes. Why? Because it sounds worse. Well, really, I think, because Shawn presents a false theory on why Joseph Smith "suddenly" produced the First Vision. Never mind that Joseph's mother includes Joseph's 1838 account verbatim in her history of her son because she feels it is so accurate. Remember, she was there in 1820 (or 1814, too, but that is obviously an error from the man with a desire for an "encyclopedic knowledge" of Mormonism (BAM, page 109). Which makes his errors so much the harder to excuse as mere mistakes.

From Shawn's notes on the first vision:

The most aggressive addition to what has come to be known as his authorized first vision was when he added that he saw “God the Father in a body of flesh and bones” standing in the air with the Son.”...To believe Joseph’s rewritten account of the First Vision that “God has a body of flesh and bone”

The part in quotes is a lie. Joseph never made or caused to be made such a statement in the context of the first vision.

It may not be a lie, but it is deceptive to only cite the part of the Bible which supports your narrow point of view. For example, Shawn cites several verses to substantiate his belief that no man has ever seen god. Since John records this statement in his Gospel (John 1:18)it would seem a straightforward proposition. There is just one problem. It isn't true.

Jacob makes the statement "I have seen God, face to face, and my life is preserved." (Genesis 32:30) He names the place "Peniel", which means "the face of God". Not much confusion here.

Shawn fails to interact with Acts 7:55-56, where Stephen expressly states that he "I see...the son of man standing at the right hand of God!"

Wait, Stephen sees God.

He also quotes a known mistranslation of the Bible, John 4:24. The text of the Bible neither says nor implies that "god is a spirit". It says "god is spirit". It also says men truly worship god only in spirit. The point was about the concept god is everywhere present, and is spiritually worshiped, not just at the Jerusalem temple. He compounds this by then ripping Numbers 23:19 completely out of context. The verse is not saying "God is not a man", but rather he doesn't behave like mortals driven by emotions and anger or revenge. Yet, if one reads the verse, it says that he is not a human being that he should change his mind. Why doesn't Shawn read that part of the verse? Could it be because we have examples of God changing his mind?

Shawn asserts that no one knew about the first vision until Joseph Smith wrote about it in 1832. This is obviously false, since his mother affirms it happens. But he quotes from several books of people who have similar sounding experiences. He writes off the fact that some are after 1820 by saying Joseph essential makes up the first vision in 1832, and keeps changing it thereafter.

Well, again, this is false. Richard Anderson wrote an article years ago entitled
"Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision through Reminiscences",(BYU Studies, 1969). In there are several contemporaries of Joseph Smith, including critics and newspaper articles, which note Joseph Smith claimed to have seen God. Again, that human encyclopedia of Mormonism, Shawn, should be aware of this, you think?

Furthermore, the changes between the various degrees of the first vision accounts are actually quite minor. Backman addressed this years ago by putting them side by side. And Matthew Brown pointed out that even the 1832 account actually seems to imply that God also appeared to Joseph Smith.

His series on Mountain Meadows simply could not have been more factually confused I suspect if he had put his notes into a blender and pulled them out of a cake he had baked. We can get into that if you want. The thing is, this is not an "anti-Shawn" column, it simply tries to respond to the current errors being thrown around out there. Most of the responses to Shawn have long since been published because so much of his "work" is unoriginal, and relies upon UTLM, a well known well-spring of unbiased material on Mormonism. Not.

Some of his statements are lies. Some just stupid errors. Some are...whatever. But I think Shawn lives in fear of letting knowledgeable Mormons on his show. It is not as if he has to have an apologist. Why not have real historians on the show? Why not have retired BYU professors on the show? But really, why not have a Dan Peterson or Kerry Shirts on the show, and really hash through an issue? It is not like they would not show up.

"A coward boasting of his courage may deceive strangers, but he is a laughing-stock to those who know him."

McCraney vs. Ed: Artistic score 8, technical score 1

2009-08-01T13:34:00.000-07:00

I was just asked about a caller to Shawn McCraney's "Heart of the Matter" show this past week. The caller's name was Ed, and he took about 10 minutes to drill McCraney about the hypocrisy of his positions against the LDS Church.

McCraney really got upset when Ed pointed out he had been excommunicated for sexual transgression. Normally, because he was married at the time, we would call that adultery. McCraney responded "Yes", and then said he had also been excommunicated for apostasy and excessive pharmaceutical use. In his book, McCraney "asked" to be excommunicated, saying he had always considered himself "an egregious sinner". He also noted he wanted excommunication and deserved it, and would accept no other response, even though he had people around him saying he should ask for leniency.

Well, first of all, as a high priest, former bishopric member and former high council member, there was NO CHANCE he was NOT go to be excommunicated. None. So his positioning of himself as taking responsibility and demanding excommunication is pure sophistry in my opinion.

Next, his response to Ed shows how little he seems to have learned. Funny thing about Shawn and sin: He never met a sin he seems to regret. He seems totally oblivious to Paul's teaching on how grace works:

"Shall we continue in sin that grace shall abound? God Forbid." (Romans 6:1-2).

Paul specifically notes that sorrow brings about salvation ONLY through repentance, which is the complete change of mind, including hating the action you previously did:

For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. (2 Cor 7:10)

We see how Shawn wants to show that of course everyone continues to sin after this fashion, because he then asks Ed if he ever lusts after women, which is to commit adultery in his heart as the scripture says. Ed says no, a position McCraney finds unbelievable.

I don't.

I thought a lot about McCraney's assertions. I don't personally lust after anyone except my wife, and I cannot recall a time when I did. I feel sorry for people who commit such sins, and their families for the impact it has on them. Ed is a good man. I often think of these statements:

nevertheless Asa's heart was perfect with the LORD all his days. 1 Kgs 15:14

9 Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. Gen 6:9

¶ THERE was a man in the land of Uz, whose name [was] Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil. Job 1:1

6 And [Zacharias and Elizabeth] were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. Luke 1:6

The problem, of course, is Evangelicals put so much incorrect emphasis on a single passage quoted by Paul in Romans, they can't understand the role people are capable of in this life when assisted by the Spirit:

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Rom 3:10-12

I want to point out that Paul then spends 6 more chapters walking us through why any sin makes us unable to save ourselves, but that now all mankind has been saved (Romans 5:18), but they retain that salvation ONLY upon obedience to the commandments of God (Romans 6:16-23)(BTW, sorry for all you Evangelicals who don't like to actually read all of Romans to cite such a long quotation showing Paul is all about personal obedience. It makes reading this blog much more difficult for some.).

Paul essentially harmonizes the idea that there is none righteous because a single sin disqualifies us from saving ourselves, BUT, if we exercise faith, as all of those examples demonstrate, then we too can be "perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matt 5:48)

So now, we come to conclusion time: Who should be believe? The guy who entertains us each week with his self-deprecating false doctrine, or the scriptures and Latter-day prophets who sustain the most basic teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: Believe, repent and baptized to be saved (Mark 16:16)

Either Shawn does not feel he needs to repent, or he does not feel he can repent. Either way, his attack on Ed was badly placed. Ed was merely restating New Testament scripture of the qualifications of a pastor:

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. (1Tim 3:2-7)

Isn't it funny how just quoting scripture to someone can get them so upset.

Let me know what you think.

BTW, I have heard some rumor about the age of the woman with whom Shawn committed adultery. I think there may have been a pretty substantial age difference, which then makes his comments about polygamy all the more telling, since for him, it apparently was all about the sex and not the pricipal. More to the point, if Shawn does not believe committing adultery is something which is to be repented of, i.e., hated and never done again, even in one's heart, how can he even remotely blame Joseph Smith for at least having the pretense of marriage?

Shawn McCraney and False Teachings On Creation

2009-07-21T19:16:00.000-07:00

Shawn is sometimes a great koolaid drinker. Shawn has read widely in philosophical writings, and should know where the false doctrine of "creation out of nothing" has its origin.
He asks the question, as if this just kills the Mormon doctrine of the eternal nature of matter:

"Are my thoughts real, are my dreams real, are my memories real?", as in, do they exist in matter?" Yes. In fact, they only exist there. Your brain holds them there. They are not free-style floating in the atmosphere.

Genesis 1:1-2 explicitly teaches that matter already existed before the creation of the world. The Hebrew word, "Bara", which is translated in the Bible as "created" has the idea of divine organizing activity.

Here are some Christian sources on the subject:
"In any case, the curtain that veils the primeval past rises at some point after the absolute beginning since watery chaos already exists. Creation in Genesis 1:1-2:3 has more to do with bringing order to that chaos and populating voids than with generating all matter." (Entry under "Creation", Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology; Edited by Walter A. Elwell; Copyright © 1996, Published by Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan)

The New Jewish Version: “When God began to create the heaven and the earth, the earth being unformed and void. . . .”; similarly The Bible, An American Translation (1931); The Westminster Study Edition of the Holy Bible (1948); Moffat’s translation (1935); and the Revised Standard Version (RSV), alternate reading.

Gerhard von Rad, notes in Genesis 1 “the actual concern of this entire report of creation is to give prominence, form and order to the creation out of chaos”.

Lest we forget, Peter was a Christian, and taught:

2 Pet 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

There is no indication that any Christian or Jew taught creation out of nothing prior to the advent of the Apostate Gnostic dogma, and it was thereafter embraced by Christian theologians.
Visit these websites for additional information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo
http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfSRC/17.3Norman.pdf Excellent paper on the history of creation out of nothing.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Creatio_ex_nihilo
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=2&id=590 Great discussion about all of the passages used by Christians to assert the Bible contains the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, by Blake Ostler.

Any of these publications make it more than clear that Shawn, again, is just speaking the Evangelical party line, not getting the whole story out there.

Don't you think it is important to know that Early Christians and Jews believed like the Mormons do?

"Anyone who knows Biblical Christianity..." is the logical error bare assertion. Shawn loves this one, he uses it often, because it makes the folks who are ignorant of the historical reality a little intimidated, since they cannot verify or reject it. It turns out if you actually research the subject, creation out of nothing is NOT original to the beliefs of Christians.

A woman called into Show to explain where people can find scriptures on the Trinity. Since it is itself a made-up doctrine, ex nihilo, it is funny to watch Shawn endorse her use of 1 John 5:7-8. Shawn knows, because we have personally discussed it, as any beginning Bible student knows that 1 John 5:7-8 was not in the original text of the Bible. It was added hundreds of years later. Nearly 1300 years before it is found in any Greek texts. Is it just me, or are we safe to decide that putting a verse which didn't exist in the original Bible, and then using it as the only explicit defense anywhere in the Bible for the doctrine of the Trinity, is more than a little convenient?

As I find typical of Shawn, he does not appear particularly interested in standing for truth as much as just repeating the falsehoods from Evangelical doctrine. Sheesh, I thought he didn't like people who are sheep? Does that lead to self-loathing?

Review of "A Struggle to Peace"

2009-07-14T16:55:00.000-07:00

Cindy Benson has written an undated work called "A Struggle to Peace". It would be the story of just another morally compromised drug and alcohol abuser who finally figures out what life is about except for Ms. Benson's penchant to distort the facts of LDS doctrine and history and her unwillingness to accept personal responsibility for her bad habits. It is the fault of that darned Mormon Church for everything that goes wrong in her life. Some examples:

Her dad leaves the family when she is age 11 to go join polygamists in Southern Utah. First it is the LDS Church's fault for changing doctrines that rips her family apart. Then it is those darned hypocritical ward members who shun them because her family is obviously of some kind of polluted seed, now that daddy is a serial adulterer.

Or when she is sleeping with her boyfriend, doing drugs and constantly drunk, that is because the LDS Church explained only that she was breaking the Church's rules, not God's laws. She feels guilty and unworthy because she is breaking the Church rules, not because she has compromised all of her values, destroyed her self-esteem, let down her mother who was destroyed by a father equally unfaithful to his beliefs.

Some other observations.

First, it is not clear why Cindy Benson's husband, Richard, is listed on the booklet as a co-author. The entire book is written in the first person by Cindy. Richard appears to be "the editor" on the last page of the book, and who knows who created the straw-man charts between page 24 and the end of the booklet.

Second, the supposed sources cited for documentation don't usually refer to the supposed doctrines they point to. The first such example is in their foot note #2, supposedly stating the doctrine that as a Mormon she was "becoming a
goddess along with my husband becoming a god over our own world." Reading the authorities she cites, we see citations in Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie (their most frequently cited authority), Miracle of Forgiveness by Spencer W. Kimball, Journal of Discourses in a talk by Brigham Young (not listed in the citation), and finally Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. None of them state we are to become gods of our own planet. In fact, I did a search of LDS Infobases 2009, and no such statement is found in any of the 1,000+ works and volumes contained in the database.

In fact, I had never heard of such a doctrine until I became a defender of the Church, and suddenly I became aware of all kinds of things apparently everyone who leaves the Church knows, but to which the unwashed masses in the Church are oblivious.

Footnote #3 supposedly supports the assertion that "we served the god of this world, whose name is Elohim". The phrase "god of this world" is a Biblical phrase referring to Satan (2 Cor 4:4, and unlike their non-literal citations of supposed LDS sources, this phrase is word-for-word in this passage). Their citation is intended to depict the LDS view of God as a small, regional deity who is actually modeled after Satan.

Let me admit I am not sure exactly how to depict a negative in terms of evidence in their citations. Since none of the sources she cites use the phraseology she uses to describe her representation of LDS doctrine, I can only say you need to read her citations. They don't contain this doctrine, just as footnote #2 does not provide a single source which depicts us as becoming regional gods over a single planet. In fact, the passages she cites indicate we become like our God in terms of creating worlds without end, the exact opposite of a regional, parochial caste hierarchy of gods she describes as the LDS concept of exaltation.

Footnote #3 in no way reflects the LDS view of who God really is:
D&C 14:2 "I am Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, who created the heavens and the earth..." Not exactly a limited geography God, or maybe the heavens (i.e., the Universe), is a limited location.

D&C 76:24 "That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God." So not only do the LDS believe God created the Universe by Jesus, but that Jesus is the Savior of all the beings created on all those worlds.

Moses 1:33 "And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten." Where in LDS teaching does it say God is NOT the God of any other planet? Worlds "without number" God has created, making the God of Mormonism somewhat larger than just a regional deity who is modeled after Satan.

D&C 29:31-34 31 "For by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea, all things both spiritual and temporal-- ...32 First spiritual, secondly temporal, which is the beginning of my work; and again, first temporal, and secondly spiritual, which is the last of my work-- ... unto myself my works have no end, neither beginning; but it is given unto you that ye may understand, because ye have asked it of me and are agreed. 34 Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual..."

This last passage is truly awesome in its scope of describing God as Mormons understand him. He is eternal, without beginning. He created all things, since He notes "all things unto me are spiritual", which He created through the power of His Spirit.

These statements also happen to be in one of the definitional documents of LDS doctrine, the D&C, which trumps all statements of explanation, by any person, except the LDS President, and then only when revealing new doctrine.

In other words, rather than trying to find a statement from LDS writers which she can take out of context to describe LDS doctrine in a denigrating manner, had she actually been a member of the LDS faith with some maturity and depth of understanding (which I will get to in a moment to show she admits she was not), she would not be making such statements which EVERY believing Latter-day Saint knows is false, and can demonstrate from its documents of its faith. This booklet, however, is not written to people who know the LDS doctrines, but rather is designed to attack and scare away people who do not. Examples are on practically every page where they clarify what the LDS community does, which is unnecessary for members of the LDS faith. By contrast, there are no insights to be found in the booklet aimed at the LDS believer which are not in virtually every Anti-Mormon book on the market.

In LDS thought, the "New and Everlasting Covenant" is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (See: Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, page 78). There is also "The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage", which is about marriage for eternity, not specifically about polygamy. Yet Cindy Benson writes "Joseph SmithCalled polygamy the "New and Everlasting Covenant," and said that all those who are not living it would be damned. fn32" Again, how to prove a negative. She cites D&C 132:4,6. So let's read them:

132:4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
132:6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.

In fact, the discussion in these verses pertains specifically to covenants not sealed by the Holy Spirit by one in authority (D&C 132:7). But the first time they discuss the covenant as it pertains to marriage is verse 15. There, it is about a singular marriage. It then goes on in verses 19-20 to describe marriage in the Covenant between a single woman and man, and states "if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant," that if they keep the covenants "then they shall be gods". Did you notice the phrase "a wife". Not wives. Not polygamy. That comes in verse 34 and thereafter.

On page 8 Cindy explains how her father had taken a 15 year old girl as his second wife. She repeatedly states that he was following the original teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. But of course, he was not. First, and most obviously, Joseph and Brigham taught that the priesthood authority to authorize such marriages resided in the president of the Church and the Apostles, and nowhere else. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, claim their authority comes from an undocumented transfer of authority by John Taylor to a John W. Woolley, who received a secret priesthood. There is no physical evidence for this, as in records in the 1st Presidency's office or journal recordings, and he never claimed this authority. His son made the claim of this ordination AFTER his father's death. Remember, the D&C 42:11 states that

"it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church."

Like father, like daughter. Don't apparently read the official LDS doctrine well enough to understand or tell others what it really means. No way for John Woolley to have received a special priesthood. (There is a great website which covers these issues at www.mormonfundamentalism.com , I highly recommend it.)

Second, the manner of practicing polygamy required the husband be "called" by a person in authority acting under the authority of the President of the LDS Church. Since that is not taking place, what we have is not a man following the original doctrines of the LDS Church, but an apostate of the faith reinterpreting history to meet his personal desires.

Cindy makes the comment that her father had promised her mother "everything--even eternity together. fn33" The thing is, again, we have a footnote with no bearing at all to the content of the statement she makes. She cites Mormon Doctrine, and the pages are all about things which are "celestial". But there is nothing which would not make her father out to be a liar. Promising eternity is like promising the moon. Some people may claim they can do such a thing, but they have no ability to deliver on such a promis.

So then we get to an interesting timeline. She claims that while a senior, she sees her Sunday School teacher enter a drug house, where she follows, and cathes him in the act with booze and a cigarette. Sure she did. But so what is her point? That the Church allows imperfect people to teach, or that imperfect people are members of the Church, but sometimes lie about their imperfections?

But like every good LDS young women, she ignores the advice of her leaders to avoid bad environments, and meets the future father of her child, and subsequently her future husband. It is important to carefully read to see how she distorts her commitment to the LDS Church. As a person who joined the LDS faith when 16 1/2, I realize there are many, many temptations out there. As a 17 or 18 year old, she had never read the New Testament. That is part of the seminary course of study, not to mention would have been part of her Sunday School curriculum (she was too busy catching her teacher breaking the Word of Wisdom to apparently notice). She does relate that she had a spiritual experience, which she does not try to explain away, confirming her faith. Yet she characterizes the promises of the Book of Mormon to reveal truth to the sincerely seeking person as being false because they are about a religion, not about Christ. As usual, her citations don't match the evidence. The promise is the Spirit will testify of truth, including the Book of Mormon, not the LDS Church. Still, she cites John 15:26 and says the Holy Spirit testifies of Jesus, not a Church. Another convenient distortion. John 16:13 tells us the Spirit shall guide us into "all truth". Just like Moroni 10:3-5.

More specifically, I have never heard anyone say they read the Book of Mormon and read Moroni's challenge, and they got a spiritual answer that the Church is true. That is not what the passage promises. It does promise a testimony of scripture, just like that other passage thoroughly ignored by anti-Mormon critics like Mrs. Benson: Luke 24:32:

"Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures."

Darned heretic Luke. Luke, the Mormon lapdog you can almost hear them regaling.

Anyway, Cindy graduates as a hypocritical "fun" date from high school. Now everyone has weaknesses. Most don't blame their church for defects of character. That was not the point. She just cannot bring herself to stop having sex, drinking and drugs, because that false Mormon Jesus just has no power. Never mind that after she is born again, nothing changes in terms of her behavior.

In drug treatment, its called hitting bottom. She eventually gets there. Blaming the LDS Church all the way, and either being completely ignorant of real LDS doctrine, or not wanting to present the actual doctrines. Surely she knows "The Seer" is not an accepted LDS work. Condemned by the Church AND its author publicly in the 1860's, it is hard to know why she finds it to be the best source to substantiate (secret) official LDS beliefs.

Anyway, she re-demonstrates her lack of commitment to hard things when she gets through cosmetology and decides to work in day care. Way to go. But we see a pattern here. She probably can somehow tie cosmetology to the LDS Church, and condemn that darn hair school. But seriously, when is she going to get to the good parts. She is rarely attending Church, has no commitment to its standards, has not read its foundational documents of faith, and has serious father figure issues leading her to rebel against her family's faith.

That darned Jesus said if you want to know if his doctrines are true, you must live them (John 7:17). Now the darned Mormons have even tricked Jesus into their silly doctrines.

But that just doesn't fit with the story of captivity she wants to tell. One where she is so spiritually captive that she tells us the Church rejects her because her father became a polygamist. Where she is so captive and connected that she and her shack-up decide to use a justice of the peace instead of her bishop.

It's all like this. There were a couple of her citations for which I don't have all of the documents she cites, but I looked up every other one, more than 95% of the cited works. Please, her husband's business partner and Mr. Benson's contention that the footnotes prove her assertions is just manifestly false. I am not going to write a 50 page review of her footnotes. Patterns emerge after the first five which, if this were an LDS book being reviewed by an Anti-Mormon, would place it as a 12 on the Richter scale of dubious truth content. But just like her view of the LDS doctrines of becoming gods of a planet, this is make-believe. It deserves to be in the fiction section of any bookstore, at least as concerns the details of the LDS faith.

This is a work in progress, so I will publish this now, and add more over time.

Perfection and "Gar"

2009-06-24T06:31:00.000-07:00

Saturday last I spent at Manti, and only spoke with a single individual. His name is Timothy Martin of Watchman Fellowship, an anti-Mormon group which is also "anti" other non-traditional Christian and non-Christian groups. So they make their living attacking other faiths.

Tim spent much of Friday and then Saturday explaining to me that as a Mormon, we are bound by the teachings of the D&C and Book of Mormon to keep the commandments, and that ANY sin results in ALL of our past sins being heaped upon us in a flood of condemnation for our gross disobedience. Though I showed him this was NOT the teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, who on page 361 of his book Miracle of Forgiveness notes we continue to repent and receive forgiveness throughout out lives for our day to day follies, and likewise are totally forgiven of those major sins of which we completely repent, he persisted. He claimed that since God cannot look upon any sin with any degree of allowance, our daily sins would necessarily exclude us from salvation. He ignores the most obvious statements from the scriptures, which he said were the only measure of official LDS doctrine even if LDS leaders, including Joseph Smith, said that the context of such requirements to "keep the commandments" was not perfection in execution but the attitude and desire and general commitment to live the commandments and repent in those circumstances of failure. He said we essentially made a mockery of the weekly sacrament, since we committed to living all of the commandments during the sacrament. I pointed out the sacrament prayer says we are "willing to" keep his commandments, but it is understood that we all continue to fail though we intend to do our best not to sin. Thus we believe it is by grace we are saved after all we can do (2 Nephi 25:23), that all we can do is have faith in Christ to forgive us and repent of our sins (Alma 24:10-11), that we are obligated to keep the commandments and repent as we commit sin (1 John 1:5 - 1 John 2:6).

That we must get to a point of not only not sinning, but having no desire to sin is undeniably part of LDS doctrine. Such a state is not only rare, but virtually impossible to see how a mortal could reach that state. Thus Joseph Smith spoke of the path to exaltation as one which is like a ladder which cannot be reached until long after we leave this life. However, that need to keep the commandments and repent as we fail does not bring upon us ALL of our past sins, nor negate the covenant between Christ and ourselves. He is our Saviour. He does not expect us to be perfect in actual deed, but the Bible describes seven people as being "perfect" in the keeping of the commandments. Did they "sin"? Of course they did. But they are described as "righteous" and "perfect".

So are we, as we live the covenant we have with Jesus, which includes exercising faith, living the commandments, and repenting of our sins. "Be ye therefore perfect (Gk: Telios: Complete), even as your father in Heaven is perfect."

So Tim through an interesting test at me. During the course of the conversation he mentioned that I am someone who has apparently studied LDS doctrine and history and Greek. I said I have. As he left, literally the last thing he said to me was, "Bob, what does the greek word "gar" mean?" I said, "Why do you ask? In what context?" He replied, "Just what does it mean?" "I said 'because'."

Technically it can mean a lot of things, in various contexts. For, And, Because. Actually a bunch of words used to translate it. But what was the point of asking. I can only guess that it was his version of a 'pop quiz' because I routinely respond to people throwing out "the original Greek" that I too have studied Greek. In fact I took 1st year Greek TWICE from Salt Lake Theological Seminary. I also quickly tell people I am no Greek scholar, never pretend to be, and frankly am not that good at it. But what it allows me to do is use the tools of the trade with understanding. I have a very limited vocabulary and couldn't teach the grammar to save my life. But that is not the same as saying I don't "get it". I do.

Had I answered incorrectly, I suspect there would be a comment about my Greek abilities being a hoax. Since I got it correct, I am guessing we won't be hearing about it. But these conversations are never about the "real" Greek. If they were, they wouldn't be Trinitarians. OK, that is opinion. But ignoring the meaning of John 1:1-2 in the Greek is a much bigger problem than whether I am an expert.

Anti's In Manti

2009-06-20T10:20:00.000-07:00

For about the 6th year now, I am in Manti, Utah during the LDS Manti Pageant. This event draws far more anti-Mormons and "missionaries to the Mormons" than any other event in the Church. Typically there are around 120 individuals in the streets around the Manti Temple attacking the faith of the LDS faithful and guests attending the Pageant. I of course say "attacking the faith of the LDS faithful" because their "message" is that Mormons are wrong and should become any flavor of Christian but Mormon.

I have blogged previously on just how unBiblical these "Christians" are in their approach, so I won't belabor that point now. What I find funny is how I am being received by the various Anti's I engage. Whenever I start to talk with someone I don't know, someone walks up to them and either says directly to them or whispers in their ear, "He is an LDS apologist, don't waste your time." I respond that I see this as a great missionary opportunity since these people at least claim to be interested in Biblical truth.

Last night I spoke with Leonard, the ex-Mormon who claims he really was active before he read a booklet which got him on track to leave the Church. I have seen the booklet and sort of scratch my head. Now Leonard talks about believing the Bible, but doesn't know it very well. Cases in point: We were discussing "faith only" salvation, and that it cannot be lost. I note Heb 5:8-9 says that Jesus is the savior of those who obey, which means we obviously have to do more than just believe. Moreover, Mark 16:16 says you must have faith and be baptized, and even more pointedly 1Pet 3:21 says it is "baptism which is now saving us". He actually gets incredulous and doesn't believe the verse in 1 Peter is real until I show it to him. So then he insists that it is not water baptism being discussed. I point out Peter specifically says it is not because of the water washing away the dirt which is saving us, but the response of our conscience to the Spirit. He says "see". HELLO!! He is specifically saying water is involved, but it is not the washing away of physical dirt. I love it when folks think they have this stuff figured out without bothering to study it.

I was speaking with a small group of LDS and non-LDS men, and one non-LDS guy was quoting from "The Miracle of Forgiveness" to try and make some points about how you must forsake all of your sins. I had been preparing to do a sort of fireside conversation down here with anti-Mormon Aaron Shafovaloff specifically on "The Miracle of Forgiveness", and I had my book with me. So I pointed out to the young man that Kimball makes it clear that our progress is expected to include day to day follies, as stated on the last page of the conclusion, but that he is focusing on getting past serious sin and gradually overcoming our less serious issues. He then asserted that we would be in a position of losing our salvation every time we sin and get our sins back to us. I said that while it is possible to lose our salvation, it is not the LDS view that simply sinning destroys our salvation, so long as our desire is to press forward.

He disagreed that we could lose our salvation (my inner voice puzzling "don't they read the scriptures?") So I reminded him that Galatians 5:4 does in fact say that they have "fallen from grace", with the context being they have ceased to obey the Gospel by going back to the Law, and have therefore lost their salvation which is in Christ. He questioned if that verse really meant losing salvation in the Greek, and told him it did. He said "Have you read it in the Greek?" "Yes", I said. "In the Greek, you have read it?" "Yes, I read Greek, I don't have it with me, but I have read it in Greek, and it does mean fallen from Grace."

At this point a guy named Tim jumped in, after a guy walked up to the young man I was speaking with and warned him about me, (I am sooooo dangerous to unstudied anti's :-) ). Tim wanted to prove that Kimball and McConkie taught that you must be perfect in this life to be saved. This is clearly not LDS belief, but this line of conversation always devolves into a discussion of my own sinful nature, and my position that God will forgive me because my attitude is one of wanting to do what is right, and trying to live to that standard, understanding that while I will fail at times, my repentant attitude coupled with my consistent general living of the Gospel is good enough. He wanted to argue that position, but at that point I saw some of my family, and excused myself and visited with them until the pageant began. It was a great night for the pageant, and I stayed to watch it. It was very good.

I plan to put a couple of small flyers together on eternal security and faith and obedience, and so long as the rain lightens up, go have some fun.

The Language of Love (literally and filthy)

2009-06-10T00:18:00.000-07:00

At the weekly gathering of anti-Mormons who meet after Shawn McCraney's show, a couple of new people were there. A father and son, they had been members of the LDS church, but no longer were. We had about 45 minutes of very pleasant conversation about work and family, and as they were getting ready to leave, I mentioned I was an active Mormon. Immediately the son commented how "F-ed up" I must be, and while his father asked questions about things related to the temple which he didn't really care to hear an answer, the son kept saying things like "if we were in a court of law you would lose". As I pointed out they were misquoting the first of the ten commandments, (they kept saying the 1st commandment said there are no other gods, instead of we should have no gods beside god, a significant actual and historical difference), they insisted I stop using the Bible to show they were misquoting the Ten Commandments, the information on Melchezidek in Hebrews, and Stephen seeing God and Christ in Acts 7. Instead the son, Maurice, got more and more agitated to the point he looked like he wanted to fight. I pointed out how unChrist-like his demeanor was, and he started shouting, to the point the restaurant staff told him to be quite, as he left using the f-word repeatedly to describe how stupid I was.

Well, I am stupid. But I am pretty sure those words weren't the language of love Jesus intended us to use on our fellow men.

There was the typical bully attitude in all of this as well. Maurice said several times I should go on Shawn McCraney's show and be displayed as a fool. While I have no real desire to be on Shawn's program, Shawn has stated several times publicly he won't have knowledgeable Mormons on his show, and I am told he told some folks I know privately that he would never have me on his show. So Maurice's dream trouncing event of me by Shawn will fall into unrequited desire.

For the record, several of the other Christians around me were mortified by Maurice's conduct, and apologized for his behavior. Reed commented that he felt I certainly had won that exchange. There really is no winner in this kind of exchange because nothing is accomplished.

Ex-Mormon Leonard's Eternal Insecurity About Authorial Intent

2009-03-18T05:41:00.000-07:00

At the weekly gathering at Village Inn of the Shawn McCraney "Heart of the Matter" post-show studio audience, about 12 or so folks showed up last night. One fellow I have met before named Leonard was there. I was sitting at the far east end of the table, and Leonard walked over to ask me how it was that I would knowingly violate the sacrament covenant each week. I noted that the sacrament prayers don't say that we will never sin, but rather that as we kept the commandments and took upon ourselves the name of Jesus, we would have his Spirit. Leonard first asserted that we did covenant to not sin, and so I started to quote the blessing on the bread, and Leonard joined in, but with the confusion, I recognized I stumbled so I turned to the BoM and got the text of the prayer in front of me. Leonard said "I know the prayer, I had to memorize it verbatim," to which I replied "Then you have forgotten it verbatim, because you got it wrong." We then read the actual prayer, and he acknowledge that the text doesn't require one not to sin, but then he asserted that the LDS god is like a yoyo, since his Spirit comes and goes based on our personal obedience. I told him that was very much a scriptural position.

Leonard is of the opinion that once one is saved, one cannot lose their salvation. Therefore it is impossible for someone to lose the Spirit, or be condemned to hell, after becoming a born again Christian.

I turned to Hebrews 10:26-29 to demonstrate the New Testament does in fact teach that we can be saved and then lose our salvation. Here is the relevant text:

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

Notice in verse 26 the author of Hebrews says "after we have received the knowledge of the truth", there is no more sacrifice.

I asked Leonard what sacrifice is that in reference to. He said "you know", and I said "Christ?", and he said "of course". I asked if there was any sacrifices after Christ's atoning sacrifice. He said I was missing the "authorial intent". He said there was no additional sacrifices, but that the verse is about unsaved people, not saved people.

Here is why this is important. If it is about unsaved people, the false doctrine of eternal salvation being assured by a single act of a sinner accepting Christ is not threatened. But I pointed out the author of Hebrews uses the word "we". Not thee or you. He includes himself.

If the author of Hebrews includes himself as someone who could "willfully sin" to the point of troddening the sacrifice of Christ under foot, then manifestly someone filled with the Spirit (since scripture is "god breathed")and "saved" by any standard, could lose their salvation. Thus this passage demolishes the concept of eternal security as taught by Evangelicals.

Back to the story.

Leonard said "How many times does it say "we" and mean the unsaved? You don't understand the authorial intent." I had my computer with me, so I said, "Let's check". I then did the search, and it turns out in Hebrews 10, the word "we" is used 5 times spread across four verses. I told him "5 times". He said he meant in the whole Bible.

What? In the whole Bible? Doesn't that violate even the most basic of Biblical interpretation principles? I said the context mattered, let's read how the author of Hebrews uses the word.

Leonard said I wouldn't understand the authorial intent, and he walked off saying "this is such an old conversation", to which I said "Come on, you're losing the argument so you are leaving." He walked off, and I read the four verses with the folks sitting by me, and they agreed.

"We" means "us" in Hebrews chapter 10, according to the context, and not "them".

Which is why Leonard walked away with his two kids. His explanation is manifestly false if one actually reads the text of the Bible.

Authorial Intent is the equivalent of arguing that one's personal theories are more important than the text of the Bible itself, and it is what allows a person to ignore changing their beliefs when confronted by passages which contradict personal theories.

For Leonard, "Authorial Intent" is only to be applied if the Truth conflicts with his personal hobby. In this case, the "Author" is Leonard.

Shawn McCraney, Stefan Dennis, Adams Road and False Doctrine

2009-03-07T09:56:00.000-08:00

People will fall for almost anything, I have found. I am not limiting that to religious truth, but since that is the point of my blog here, let's follow that road.

I wrote a few weeks ago about a young man and his wife who appeared on Shawn McCraney's weekly fantasy program, Heart of the ****** (This was for Robert V.'s benefit. No, it is not related to sex.) Heart of the Matter.

He commented this week, and you can see his remarks here. He invited anyone who cares to see his support on his facebook page, which I did. His assertion is that all the support needed to make the case that the Apostles did not continue doing ordinances in the Jerusalem temple after the death of Christ could be found there.

Not so much, really.

He wrote in an email to me:

"It is well known that you had to be a literal blood descendant of Aaron to hold the priesthood in Old Testament times. This is backed up by the OT and you may also ask any Jew or Jewish Scholor to confirm this."

Let me publish my response with just a few minor changes to improve readibility:

This is just flatly false. Sorry, but God had originally intended to have everyone hold the priesthood (Ex 19:6). We have multiple examples of non-Aaronic priests who are recognized as authentic. Moses' father-in-Law Jethro is everywhere called "Jethro, the priest of Median". And then there is Melchizedek, who even Abraham paid tithes to. His place in Hebrew history is limited in scripture, but huge in impact, and is cited as part of the reason Jesus' atonement was effective. Please read http://www.templestudiesgroup.com/Melchizedek_Barker.pdf if you get a chance.

I just read through your notes on Facebook. My heart truly aches for your misunderstanding of both the Gospel, but especially issues such as the role of the priesthood. Likewise, your statement about the Holy Ghost being God, and quoting John 4:24 that "god is a spirit" is a little sad. You should have learned in your extensive research that not only is John 4:24 a mistranslation if rendered "god is a spirit", (as it should read "god is spirit"), but the very sense is describing a single attribute of God which is also ascribed to men, that is having a nature which is spiritual. John 4:24 in no way means God lacks a physical nature, since this contradicts the meaning of Gen 1:26-27; 3:8,10. Unless God walks without legs and has a voice without a throat and head.

A couple of easy questions:

How many real priesthoods are described in the Bible?

What priesthood do Christians hold (Rev 1:6, 5:10, 20:6; 1Peter 2:5, 9)?

Was the Aaronic priesthood ever the priesthood of Royalty?

What is the role of a priest?

Why do we need to be priests if we have direct communion with God and Christ?

What was the role of the Temple to Messianic theology? (Unfair, because this is actually a huge question.) What priesthood do Christian "kings and priests" hold(Rev 1:6; Rev 5:10)?

What lineage was required to be a Melchizedek priest, i.e., what is the position of royalty required, and through what line must it come, to hold the Melchizedek priesthood?

Melchizedek is called a priest to the Most High God. Was this an Aaronic priesthood office?

Is mankind now perfect? If not, then why has the non-LDS Christian world done away with the offices of Apostle and prophet? Why eliminate those offices, but keep pastors teachers and evangelists? (Eph. 4:11-14) If there were no more prophets after Christ, as is falsely interpreted from Hebrews 1:1-2, then why are there so many holders of the office of prophet in the New Testament, not just people who are experiencing the gift of prophecy?

As a convert, I truly know what it means to be born again. I guess I would give you the homework assignment to read Romans, especially chapters 5-10. And be prepared to explain how "grace only" fits with Hebrews 5:8-9 as to how one is not just saved (as according to Romans 5:18 everyone is saved, believer and non-believer alike), but how one "retains" salvation, according to the Bible. Because if you can "fall from grace" (Gal. 5:4), then there is something you must do to NOT fall from grace.

The problem I find with the attacks on LDS beliefs by folks like Shawn McCraney, Adam's Road band members and Stefan Dennis is they just are so limited and unfair in their perspective of Biblical doctrine.

I flatly reject the idea that a person can, as Lynn Wilder said of her husband, just read the New Testament and come away realizing Mormonism is false. I reject that because I am where I am largely because I had the opposite experience. I saw LDS doctrine everywhere. We see there are other real divine beings, gods, discussed and believed everywhere (John 1:1, Acts 7:55-56; John 10:35; Rev 3:21; Hebrews 1; nearly anyplace mankind is described as "sons of god"). I found exaltation everywhere in the NT. I realized there were apostles and prophets intended to stay in the Church until as long as the true Church was on the face of the Earth. Eph 4:11-14; 1 Cor 12-13. I find 1 Cor 12-13 particularly compelling because we have Paul teaching, without any confusing language, that having prophets in the Church is the way it is until perfection comes. The things which will remain are Faith, Hope and Charity, meaning the apostles and prophets WILL be done away, but not until that point in time.

Lastly, the idea of revelation is everywhere in the Bible. Not Just James 1:5, but literally dozens of times in the Bible we are told to seek out with our heart to find truth. In fact, Paul notes that the reason some folks don't know the truth is they have hardened their hearts until they are past feeling (Eph 4:18-18).

The Bible is demonstrably NOT perfect in the sense of no contradictions, weak translations or mis-translations. That is easily demonstrated. When you ask a Christian why do you believe the Bible is the word of God, as two BYU professors did to anti-Mormon James White, you initially get this illogical circular reasoning which says because it says it is. Just like the Koran or any of several other books, including the Book of Mormon. Then when they realize the illogic of their position, they will say that the Spirit testifies it is true. Just like the Book of Mormon.

I have used this example a lot as anti-Mormons attack the Book of Mormon on the basis of a lack of documented archeological finds supporting it. I pose this question: Is it better to have no proof contradicting your claims, but also nothing supporting your claims, or, from a logical point of view, is it better to have a book with some archeological support, but also explicit archeological proof contradicting it? I would think the first option is better, which of course is the case with the Book of Mormon. The second case is the Bible. While non-LDS Christians love to wave their "archeological proof" at Mormons like some kind of testament to the reality of the resurrection (which it is not), they generally are unaware that there is probably not a single Biblical archeologist who accepts the Biblical record without reservations, especially the content prior to the time of Jeremiah. As I have mentioned before, the scientific proof against the Biblical stories about Jericho and Ai (Joshua 6-7)is overwhelming. No archeologist I am aware of, believes the story of Jericho or Ai happened as outlined in the Bible, based on Carbon 14 proof found at the site and the archeological findings on site, with the exception of Bryant Wood, who literally has no support in the archeological community for his position.

So, is it better to be waiting for proof to support the reality of your position, OR, is it better to have scientists saying your book is documentably false even if it gets some geographic details correct? I don't think this is all that hard to figure out.

Adam's Road, Stefan Dennis and the Wilder's all leapt without an intellectual net. Their positions are about as supportable as sandcastles at the beach made at low tide. Thank goodness for the Holy Spirit's presence in the LDS Church to keep the vast majority of members from the confusion so evident in their positions.

Mormon Coffee Closes Discussion on Free Speech with Mormons

2009-01-29T09:30:00.000-08:00

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).

Sharon,
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.

Sharon,
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?

Bob

Mormons Have Another Jesus: The Biblical One

2009-01-25T19:35:00.000-08:00

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.

Suggestions?

2009-01-23T07:29:00.000-08:00

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.

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

2009-01-21T06:30:00.000-08:00

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 ...ye 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 www.fairlds.com 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.

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

2009-01-20T17:00:00.000-08:00

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.

What if I have a Problem with Paul's Interpretation of Jesus?

2008-12-24T07:06:00.000-08:00

I was busy Tuesday night, but got a chance to catch 15 minutes or so of Shawn McCraney's weekly TV journey into his misguided attack on all things LDS. One question from a caller was quite interesting for how it illuminated the hypocrisy of Shawn in dealing with LDS beliefs vs. his interpretation of Christianity.

Shawn was asked by a woman caller if he placed the statements of Paul on the same plane as the recorded statements of Jesus. He said he did, as they all came from the same source. She said she did not, as Paul's statements could have been just commentary instead of divine messages.

The hypocrisy here is Shawn has repeatedly attacked LDS statements stating or implying that one cannot be saved without believing Joseph Smith was a prophet. Usually the attack on such statements truncates the explanation that if Joseph Smith was a prophet, one is effectively rejecting God's words, not Joseph Smith's, by denying he was a prophet, and therefore is rejecting Jesus' servants (See Mark 7:7-13).

Yet, here we find Shawn making the same argument. He noted there is very little of Jesus quoted in scripture. The truth is Jesus wrote nothing anyone is aware of. Everything is from inspired servants.

Shawn, can one reject Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul and Moses, and still be saved?

If they are real, inspired servants of God, the answer is 'NO'!

Which is the LDS positioned concerning EVERY WORD of GOD, coming through prophets both recent and far past.

Or, surprise us all Shawn: Be consistent and support the idea one can reject the teachings of Paul and still be saved. It is illogical from a Christian or Sola Scriptura standpoint, but consistent with Shawn's attacks on the LDS faith.

Sola Scriptura Not McCraney's Alma Mater

2008-12-18T07:59:00.000-08:00

This site is not intended as a weekly comment on Shawn McCraney's video screed of things LDS, but his latest attempt at scholarship is surely worth the look, if for no other reason than there are many laughs to be had. This week he addressed the history of scripture and documents in support of it. It perfectly illustrates the statement that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

The point of the presentation was, as Shawn commented several times, how trustworthy the support for the Bible is, and in particular, why such support is to be rationally discerned as opposed to the irrational support for the Book of Mormon.

Sadly, it would be hard to intentionally put so much misinformation about the Bible together even if I did somehow find it objectionable. I personally find it dangerous to peoples' faith to misrepresent the Bible's history, as it comes across as if one is afraid to tell the truth.

For example, Shawn made a big deal about how the translation of the Bible into Latin was an attempt to take it out of the language of the people to manipulate them. Nothing could be further from the truth. The language of Italy and western Christianity was Latin. Translating it into Latin made it available to many more people, as most local priests could read, and therefore could share the Bible to those who generally could not read. The word "Vulgate", as in "Latin Vulgate", means "common", as in the language of common people. Our world "vulgar" has its roots in this meaning, as something was vulgar because it was "of or relating to the common people"(Webster online)., or as the entry for the Vulgate says, "the speech of the common people and especially of uneducated people" .

His explanation of the coming forth of English Bibles was just sad. He never mentions that the King James Bible was very much just a minor revision of Tyndale's work, which was reused up to the time of the KJV. Anyone reading Tyndale will see it immediately.

His explanation of why there are no original documents by Paul or Moses is also embarassing to listen to, as it ignored the fact we have copies of every Old Testament book except Ruth from the Dead Sea Scrolls which date to earlier than the New Testament, written on various perishable media. The original letter to Romans, for example, could have been placed in a jar and sealed up to be preserved, just like the DSS.

He never addressed the fact that 300 years after Christ there are no more than 4 or so complete copies of the New Testament known to exist, and no more than 75 total documents or any length by the end of the 4th Century. (See this link for how those NOT of the Christian faith view the manuscript evidence. It is NOT a "rational" position to contend it is uncontested.)

Again, not brought up is any attempt to show how the Book of Mormon could be compared to the Bible texts. For example, the Book of Mormon plates represent a revision of first hand documents and first hand documents compiled by its authors (Mormon and Moroni). It went through a single translation into English, with relatively few translational revisions. The "documents" (the gold plates) were seen by more than a dozen witnesses, and the translation was pronounced by a voice from heaven as being accurate. This compares extremely well to the Bible's various manuscripts, which suffer from anywhere from 250,000 to 400,000 textual variations, a few of which are quite important.

Which is something Shawn never discussed. The Tanner's famously wrote of over 3,000 changes to the text of the Book of Mormon, of which less than 100 where actual revisions to the basic text, the rest being various grammatical changes. By contrast, Bruce Metzger published a companion to the Greek New Testament which lists over 1,800 textual variations he felt rose to the level of needing explanations, of which more than 100 were of such a nature that NO determination of what the original text was can be determined from the manuscripts available today.

In trying to explain the support the earliest complete Greek codexes give to the New Testament, Shawn never once discussed the thousands of errors and conflicts between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, or that some groups actually reject them completely (King James Only proponents) because they contradict the vast majority of much younger manuscripts which are typically referred to as Textus Receptus, or the Received Text.

I have said this before, but the New Testament is my favorite volume of scripture, bar none. After nearly 30 years of intensive study, I see the NT as a do a good friend, warts and all, and I accept it as the word of God. Where I have problems with "Sola Scriptura" is the normal falsehood attached to it that it is inerrant. It simply is a false position to contend that the Bible, any Bible, does not have errors within it. The issue is, to me, do these errors in any way matter in terms of salvation? NO! So I can read the Bible, errors and all, and feel the inspiration of the Spirit bear witness of its truth, without fear of being misled. I don't have to try to harmonize why a faith denys the existence of an organized priesthood, the necessity of baptism, or the fact that men can be exalted. I accept the printed words as written. In some cases it helps to know what the Greek or Hebrew texts say. But most of the time the Bible, any Bible, is clear enough that when coupled with living prophets and the inspiration of the Spirit, there is no confusion.

Shawn has a bias against "organized religions". He does not believe any person has to be involved in another person's salvation. In this he is grossly mistaken, for Paul writes:

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? (Rom 10:13-15)

Paul teaches that only those sent by a Church organization, which teaches the Gospel, can teach the real message of salvation.

28 And God hath set some in the church... (1 Cor 12:28)

Once again we see how just reading someone's tract on the history of scripture can leave you a different message than scripture.

You Don't Understand the Bible Makes Me A Heretic?

2008-11-09T07:05:00.000-08:00

I attended a debate Friday evening between LDS apologist Martin Tanner and Pastor Jason Wallace, a vocal critic of the LDS Church. It was interesting and respectful, but did not really stay focused on the topic of "The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon".

Afterward, a young man, I think his name was Matt, went up to the podium and engaged a few Mormons in his attempt to show LDS views of salvation and Christ are not Biblical. He was talking with Van Hale, whom I respect as one of the most knowledgable and considerate defenders of the LDS faith anywhere, and I chimed in with my own thoughts. As the conversation moved to the idea of salvation meaning exaltation, John 1:1 was brought up by Matt as proof of there being a single essence of God shared by the Father and Son.

I tried to explain the grammar, but he clung to an erroneous understanding (following a misunderstanding of Colwell's rule on the use of the definite article) of the phrase "...and the word was god" to identify Jesus being the same as "god" in the previous clause, "and the word was with god...". This of course creates the heresy of Sabellianism or a form of modalism. Beyond that, it is simply bad grammar.

So I happen to have a copy of pages 8-9 of "A Translators Handbook to the Gospel of John", published by the United Bible Societies, the same non-LDS group sponsoring translations into dozens of languages around the world. It specifically explains that in the phrase "the word was god", 'god' is to be understood as an adjective, and the phrase connotes similarity, not identity. The word has a nature which is like God's, he is not THE God. It specifically cites Moffatt's translation that "the word was divine" as coming very close to being the best translation in the fewest words, though "the word was the same as god" is adequate as well. They go on to explain that the phrase in its use is like a phrase about teaching: ...and Mr. Green was with the teacher, and Mr. Green was a teacher.

Mr. Green belongs to a class of individuals, teachers. Not all teachers are Mr. Green.

I directed him to look up Daniel Wallace's lengthy treatment in "Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics", where he points out the same things, noting that the use of "god" in the phrase "the word was god" is a qualitative meaning, i.e., it describes a quality of the word, not his identity.

He insisted I did not have it right, and said he didn't believe me, to which I said I wouldn't expect him to believe me. This led to the question of the Word creating all things ex nihilo, which I responded by citing the verse John 1:1 is paralleling being Genesis 1:1-2, which states in clear terms in the Hebrew that 'In the beginning, when god began to create, he did so out of the existing, chaotic watery mass, and created heaven and earth'. I told him this was a paraphrase, but was very reflective of what Genesis was teaching. Again, he said he did not believe me, and I think it was his Dad who was standing there with him (they looked alike, but I could be wrong), who was adament that this concept of creation was crazy and deminished God, so I told him to look up "Creation" in "Baker's Evangelical Dictionary" or the foot notes to the Net Bible's Genesis 1:1 . I also told him I had had a wonderful, 3 hour conversation with a Jewish Rabbi about this exact topic, in the presence of 4 anti-Mormon friends of mine who had brought him, and he acknowledged that this verse does not carry the meaning that absolute creation of matter is described here.

Matt was thoroughly shocked that his understanding of these issues had a legitimate, scholarly meaning which could support the LDS position. He actually thought I was making it up as I went along, until the debate moderator, who is not LDS, came over and said "Yes, I think I remember reading that", or words to that effect.

Matt has been taught a false tradition by his spiritual fathers, which then leads him to conclude the LDS are heretics. Even after I showed him the scholarly evidence from the photo copies I carry with me of some of these items, he still could not accept his understanding could be flawed. Which is why spiritual conversion by those who seek truth rather than simply to defend their position is predicated on humility. I am not the most humble guy in the world, but I recognize I still can learn from many, many sources, LDS and otherwise. My world is not threatend when I learn new things, because my world view is that of Joseph Smith: Let the truth from all sources lead you where it may.

Any faith which requires a limited understanding of its doctrines to remain faithful is probably a faith with bloggers attacking the LDS faith.

Yes, I am a heretic, because you don't really understand the Bible.

Mormon Interpretation of 1 Cor 15:29

2008-10-18T13:06:00.000-07:00

Why do Mormons draw support for the practice of baptism for the dead from 1 Corinthians 15:29? First of all, the practice of baptizing on behalf of the dead was not revealed to the LDS Church until 1841. So when Joseph Smith was reading the Bible and performing what has come to be called his Inspired Translation, he did expound on the concept of performing temple work as a proxy for those who had passed away. In other words, the verse is not the basis of the doctrine, but rather is evidence of past practice of a doctrine which has now been restored.

But let's look at two technical points about how this verse is to be correctly understood. The verse speaks in the third person, as written by Paul, about "they" who are baptizing for the dead. Anti-Mormon literature frequently assails this as proof Paul is not saying it accomplishes anything, since he was not sent to baptize. As the reasoning goes, if Paul was not baptizing, then it must not be essential to salvation.

Two points show the folly of the anti-Mormon argument.

1. Paul says he is not baptizing people not because it was unnecessary, but because the people in the Church at Corinth were bragging about who had baptized them (1 Cor. 1:10-17). He notes that by the Spirit "All are baptized into one body," and through that baptism are made partakers of the Spirit.(1 Cor. 12:13). We know from Paul's other letters he believes water baptism is essential to putting on Christ (Romans 6:3-4; Titus 3:5, which uses the word washing, a word which in Greek means to thrust into water to clean something!)

So Paul's point is not that baptism is unimportant so he does not do it, but rather everyone there is baptized, and it does not matter who does it as they are all baptized into Christ's body.

2. Paul is very careful about the words he uses. So re-read 1 Cor. 15, and note the following: Whenever Paul uses a first person or third person pronoun(I, we, they, them), he always is speaking positively about those people, noting they have true faith (see 1 Cor 15:1-3, 9-11, 15, 18-20, 23, 29-32, 34-35, 48-52).

But those to whom he speaks to directly in the 2nd person (ye, you, your) he speaks in rebuke. Starting in verse two (after reminding them in verse 1 he had preached the Gospel to them), he notes their faith may be "vain" because they forget what he preached. He notes among "you" are those doubting the resurrection (vs. 12). He continues a rhetorical approach to their lack of faith by asserting their faith is in vain if Christ did not rise from the dead (vs. 17), and they are still in their sins.

Now comes the critical point of the argument. After discussing the resurrection of all the dead by Christ's atonement (vs 21-22), he notes the order of the resurrection is they who are righteous in Christ, then the rest, until Christ subdues everything (vss. 23-28). And the very next three verses compares everyone he is discussing:

Vs. 29 is about the faith of "they" who are baptizing for the dead, whose faith would be in vain if there really is not a resurrection. So he is identifying these people as faithful in Christ.

Vs. 30 Paul now notes "we" all stand in jeopardy constantly because of our true faith.

Vs. 31 notes "your" rejoicing is flawed because you do not actually believe in the resurrection of the dead, and such non-faith means a consistent response would be to live each day as the pagans, who feed their bellies (vss. 32-33).

Vs. 34 notes Paul is speaking to "your" shame. They need to awake to righteousness and sin not. This goes to the heart of the point that Paul started this passage by noting that "ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain." (1 Cor 15:2)

So Paul affirms the correctness of baptizing for the dead, explains why he is not doing so, and reaffirms that belief can save us at this moment, but it is through repentance and righteous living, relying in faith upon the atonement of Christ, by which we will be saved in eternity.

Justification, Works, Deeds and My Salvation

2008-10-12T09:34:00.000-07:00

When I hear Shawn McCraney, Bill McKeever, James the screamer or a myriad of other critics talk about the LDS beliefs, either intentionally or otherwise, they get them wrong. I showed an ex-Mormon person I meet with weekly, to discuss LDS doctrine, notes from Shawn McCraney's show on the First Vision. I had added my responses and references, and he turned to an anti-Mormon fellow sitting there with us and said "Shawn should not claim to be an expert on Mormonism." Nearly every "fact" he asserted in his notes was documentably false. What makes one chuckle is McCraney's repeated assertions that Mormons never challenge his facts, they are just frustrated with his doctrinal analysis and Biblical expertise. Of course, that is it.

Not to pick on McCraney exclusively, it is precisely such assertions that make having a conversation with anti-Mormons and some brainwashed ex-Mormons about actual history and doctrine so difficult to carry out.

One problem is that there is no canonized dictionary of the definitions which often get drawn into the contention. So let's pick on what a few critical words mean.

I love the Evangelical argument that Ephesians 2:5, 8-9 that you are saved by Grace through faith. What does that mean? I fail to see the words confession there (Romans 10:9). I don't see believe in your heart. In fact, Ephesians 2:10 basically restates what Romans 5-8 teaches, that we are saved by Grace, but we are required to be obedient to Christ's teaching, thus we must "walk in [good works]". Grace is a gift which is not conditioned on any act of our own. Thus Romans 5:9-10 tells us that everyone was reconciled to God, through the death of Jesus, but "being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." The idea here is that we put on the life of Jesus by ceasing from sin and being obedient to the commandments of God.

If I read all the main "Born Again" or "Grace Only" verses, there is no commonality across all of them. In 1 Cor 15:1 Paul specifically says that he is declaring the Gospel. And what does he declare? That IF they remember that Jesus died according to the scriptures, was buried and rose we will be saved. Where is our faith? Where is confession? Where is the sinners prayer?

In Romans 10:9 Paul teaches that if we believe in our heart and confess with our mouth, we will be saved. He goes on in verse 16 to explain that belief and obedience are equivalent terms. Where is Grace? Where is the discussion of Jesus dying?

Justification means to make us right before God in a legal sense. We are declared "not guilty" of whatever we did. But Justification is not a pardon of future actions. It is not a blank check to sin. In fact, in Romans 5:18-21, which declares ALL people are made righteous in God's sight through the atonement of Christ, is immediately followed by the very specific teaching of Romans 6 that we must cease sinning, or we are condemned to death. He asks the question:

15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
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?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Rom 6:15-17

It is hard to imagine a more "Mormon" passage anywhere in scripture, and there is stands in the middle of Romans.

Works are confused between the "Works of Moses" and just being obedient to Christ. Paul does not say we should not obey, he says the idea of "earning" heaven is impossible. You can never get God in debt to you (Mosiah 2:21-25). No matter what you do, God gives us more than we can give him, so there is no way to put him into debt to us and earn salvation.

Moreover, "Works of the Law" is a technical term, and saying "works" (Greek "ergon") in a context of salvation is short hand for works of the Law of Moses. Ergon is also perfectly good to be used in a context outside of the "works of the Law" of Moses, but context makes such usage clear, such as Romans 2:6, 7 ("deeds" and "doing"). Romans 3:27 uses the shorthand "of works" in reference to the Law, and Romans 4:2 is clearly referring back to works of the Law as cited just two verses earlier in Romans 3:31.

This is probably a good point to mention the cultural teaching style was to read the letters to the congregation in a continuous reading. Chapters and verses were not added to the scriptures for hundreds of years. We now routinely see people dividing thoughts into sub-thoughts as if they were detached from the context.

So for a Mormon, myself, I am confident of my Justification. I am equally convinced that I cannot earn salvation, but that I know that as long as I am acting in faith, I am saved. I still have my shortcomings, but that is why Christ asks only for my obedience, not my human perfection.

Romans on Grace, Works and Justification

2008-10-09T05:52:00.000-07:00

As a Latter-day Saint, there was a time when the letter to the Romans in the New Testament seemed like a theological maze. Whenever I spoke with non-LDS, they would point to verses in it to support their claim that "Grace only" or "Believe and Confess" were the theological underpinnings.

I took up Romans as my own special project, to try to get my arms around it. After many years of study, I have reached several conclusions which I think are helpful to people of all faiths.

1. The letter to the Romans was primarily written to the Jews of the Church at Rome. Romans 2:17, 4:1, 7:1-2. There are parts written to everyone, but Paul repeatedly quotes from the Old Testament and illuminates what the proper understanding of the role of "works" are in salvation.

2. "Works" are almost always meant to be understood as works or deeds of the Law of Moses. There was an article from Biblical Archeology Review in Nov/Dec 1994 which demonstrated that Paul is almost always using the phrase "works/deeds of the Law" as a technical defined term closely corresponding to writings by the same name in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

3. Paul requires obedience as a fundamental condition of faith. Romans 10:16 literally defines it as such.

4. Works differ from obedience and walking or living in Christ because of the intent. Paul talks about works as a way of earning salvation, without a requirement of exercising faith. Obedience not only expresses our faith, but grows it as well.

5. Probably the most fascinating point in Paul's writings, and continuously ignored by those who advocate a "Grace Only" salvation scheme, is Paul's central teachings that through Jesus Christ, ALL people are already saved and justified in the sight of God (Romans 5:18; 7:9); that they retain this state of salvation only by refraining from sin and walking in faith (Rom 6:15-18; 8:1,4) , and failure to do so results in damnation (Rom 8:5-6).

Paul teaches that God is no respector (2:11) of people, and that all have sinned(3:23). He elaborates on this in Romans 5 by pointing out that through Adam, sin entered the world to all people(5:12). He points out, though, that Christ's atonement covers all of mankind's sins, not just those of the believers(5:18). The gift of the Atonement is on all mankind for justification unto life. This becomes the foundational teaching for why we must obey, because the only thing which differentiates believers from non-believers is their attempt to follow Christ and be led by the Spirit. Otherwise they are worthy of damnation, just as the unfaithful are (1:32).

6. Paul's teachings on Election and predestination are exclusively about God's selection of Israel as the channel to deliver prophets and ultimately Christ. This an area of Paul's teachings where he heavily draws on Old Testament verses (Isa 29:16; Jer 18:6) to show it is the corporate body of the children of Israel which God had chosen, and now he had chosen the New Testament Church as the same vehicle for dispensing salvation.

7. Romans 10:9 about confessing and believing is about being taught the Gospel by authorized preachers (10:15) and upon exercising faith, we must be obedient (10:16). Romans 10:13 is from Joel 3:5, and was quoted by Peter at the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:21). When asked by those listening what they needed to do, as they felt the Spirit testify their preaching was true (Acts 2:37), since they already BELIEVED in Jesus, they were told to "repent and be baptized...for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost...Save yourselves from this untoward generation." (Acts 2:38-40)

Paul teaches in Romans that it is through water baptism that one puts on Jesus Christ and becomes the New Man (Romans 6:3-5). Living our life in obedience is our confession of who we are, that is, we are Christ's (Rom 7:4, 12:5).

8. Lastly, Romans 8 is teaching that mankind can become like God. The phraseology Paul uses, calling those who are saved the "children of God", "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ", to be glorified (vss17-18), of which receipt of the Spirit is just the beginning of the gifts we are to receive(vs 23), but he notes that what we are now, even with the Spirit, not even a glimmer of what we will become (vss 19-21). Again, this is consistent with the teachings of the Old Testament that man's destiny was to rule over all the creations of God (Rom 4:13, Ps 8:6).

Paul begins and ends the letter to the Romans by mentioning obedience (1:5; 16:19,26), and he laces it 10 more times directly in the letter, then uses language such as "do" (48 times), walk (6 times), follow (3 times), keep(twice) to emphasize our part in our salvation.

'Faith' in Romans results in obedience, and obedience results in our continuing salvation. It is possible to have Faith without obedience. The lack of obedience leads us to death. Thus James and Paul completely agree that Faith without works is dead, being alone.

Pervangelical Ignorance

2008-10-08T11:24:00.000-07:00

I don't really like name calling. In fact, I try not to do it at all. But this past weekend at LDS General Conference there was such a farcical zoo created by the Street Preachers, that I sort of figure I need a new name for these folks who claim to be Evangelical Christians. Simply speaking, they are not. They pervert the doctrines of the Bible for their own self-aggrandizement.

One fellow named James is a particularly choice piece of Biblical perversion. He is deceptive and rude, and then resorts to the Bible to claim such rights. Jesus must weep extra hard. The funny thing is he likes to dress up in costumes and wear a cape, but then he calls Mormon men "effeminate". Seriously. His family looked to me like a bunch of demoralized troops run into the ground by an oblivious commander. He strutted around wearing a Satan outfit and tried to be sarcastic. I spoke with him on Saturday, and he asked me where the book of Hezekiah is in the Bible. Of course, it is not in the Bible, and I said so. He immediately responded "Oh, you've seen my videos online." Well, truthfully, yes, but I did not recognize him, and I knew the answer from my study of the Bible.

This kind of person is unChristian at so many levels. Peter advised us to have "answers" to questions asked of us, but to answer with gentleness and respect. No one is asking him questions, he just stands around and yells at people. I was speaking with his family, and he comes over to tell them not to speak with me, and then starts asking questions of me, and when I said he was rude and this was not a conversation, he said he was not trying to have a conversation, he was preaching. I guess I should know a guy dressed as Satan and being rude is probably congenitally unable to be honest in his communications with others.

He is literally so proud of his Bible study experience, he refuses to entertain there could be more to learn. He was attacking the LDS position on the Godhead, and I told him that John 1:1-2 was pretty compelling evidence that there is more than 1 real divine being or God in Biblical Christianity. He said let's read it, and I quoted it to him in the Greek. He started saying that I asserted we should be reading the original documents, and of course there are none, and so I was a fool.

I never said let's read the original documents, since their abscence is well known to any LDS person or anyone else who has studied Biblical Greek. I said let's read it in the original language. Since all or nearly all of the New Testament was written in Greek, and the King James Bible was translated from Greek documents, it seems obvious to me that only a person with highly perverted concepts of what the Bible teaches would be afraid to try to understand the nuances of the Greek language. For example, if you understand that the words for righteous and justified are from the same root, it creates some texture to more fully understanding the use of the two words. If you understand the grammar of John 1:1 it completely changes the meaning of the English translation. The English translation is only valid IF you know what the Greek was saying, or else you walk away thinking God and the Word are just different manifestations of the same god. But that is not what the verse teaches. It is teaching the Word fully posses all the attributes of God, and yet is not the God, but is with God and is himself perfectly described as being god, just not The God. In other words, it absolutely says that God and the Word, who is Jesus, are two separate but equally divine beings. Very LDS from a doctrinal standpoint.

There is a certain part of me which is glad Jim and the other Pervangelicals show up. I doubt anyone has left the LDS Church as a result of the protestors for the past 6 years. No one with questions concerning their faith would ever stop, and as a result they get the good advice they need from their Bishop.

Jesus never attacked or yelled at people not of his faith. Neither did Paul. Nor did any other New Testament teacher or leader. They did attack hypocrites within their own faith, Jewish Pharisees and Judaizers. They preach for belief in Jesus, not attacking other faiths. Which is the LDS approach.

I understand more and more why people who get more and more education leave non-LDS faiths, and why the more one is educated, the more likely they are to be active participants if they are LDS. It turns out people who don't think the world is flat can grasp that God still speaks through prophets, even if those prophets have human flaws. There was a time when the institutions of religion were the champions of education. The hijacking of the Evangelical and Protestant faiths has rendered such zeal unpopular, even persecuted.

Is "Anti-Mormon" Codespeak for the "N" Word?

2008-09-29T13:16:00.000-07:00

One well known anti-Mormon has written that LDS use of the phrase "anti-Mormon" is equivalent to societal usage of the "N-word" to describe African Americans.

This is a man apparently in search of pity.

You can read his rationale here.

The problem is there is no comparison. Or is there, but not what he wants.

The "N-word" most likely derived from Americanized slang for the French and Spanish words for black, negre and negro. Today the N-word is highly offensive when used in society, (and frankly I am offended at it's use by various African-American music artists who don't seem to understand the harm they perpetuate to themselves and others by its use, but that is another discussion.) though such was not the case in earlier history. According to the 1913 Webster it was considered a vulgar application for negros; and up until the latter half of the 19th century it was not seen as insulting, per se, but rather a description of the color of African Americans as used by virtually all non-African Americans who were oblivious to the racist and arrogant assumptions incumbant upon the use of the word when applied to African Americans.

The difference is any attempt to grab the gravity of this phrase is simply a tasteless abuse of history which testifies to the suffering of slaves, brought against their will and traded as commodities, and given a name of derision.

By contrast, anti-Mormons took the title "anti-Mormon" to themselves in the 19th century. I believe even recent critics like Sandra Tanner have labeled themselves "anti-Mormons".

People bearing such a label don't suffer enslavement. Indeed, they are practically worshiped by various Christian groupies for their "love and heart" for the Mormon people. I have seen this first hand, and you can find plenty of videos on the web showing these people presenting to various church groups.

Many also get "PAID" to do this activity. And they can quit when they want. And occasionally they convert to Mormonism. Try that as one labeled by the "n-word". A slave becoming a white master, if you are going to attempt to co-op the negative connotations of the "n-word". (Yes, a strawman argument, but it just so easily fits the situation. I will try to refrain going forward.)

The term "anti-Mormon" describes something someone does, and it carries no social penalty to use the term, except among the anti-Mormons when they feel it may misrepresent their actual nature. That being said, if they are attacking the LDS faith, then their rejection of the title is more like a pedophile wanting to be called a child lover and not a monster. It does not offend the average Christian who hears the term "anti-Mormon". It does not offend the average non-Christian. It does not offend the average Mormon.

The irony is this is not a term angrily given by Mormons to reluctant recipients. It was a description of people's activities which was gladly received by virtually all such people working against the LDS faith, and worn as something of a badge of honor.

The difference between the "n-word" and "anti-Mormon" is the difference in the meaning of one who is oppressed, and one who is a racist. Those labeled by the "n-word" are involuntarily labeled and have a history of oppression caused solely because of birth circumstances. An anti-Mormon, however, is more like a racist, someone who has chosen to engage in a belief system which attacks others in the belief their system is superior.

Anti-Mormons choose to attack or engage Mormons. People labeled by the "n-word" do not seek the circumstances which bring on its application. You can be a Christian without being an "anti-Mormon", even while disagreeing with the LDS faith. I don't know of any examples where an African American has not been labeled by some ignorant bigot with the "n-word" at some point in their life.

An "anti-Mormon" is essentially a religious racist. We could call them theological skin-heads, or Christian nazi's. Each of these labels bears the implied meaning of a choice. A Christian missionary does not attack other faiths, they preach and invite into their own faith. They may or may not believe their concept of Christianity is the only way to return to God, but they don't attack other faiths when their efforts are lacking. They simply continue in their labors, and move on. Peter tells believers to be ready to give an answer for the reason for their faith, and do so with gentleness and respect. Such attitudes are usually foreign to anti-Mormons.

Anti-Mormons go out of their way to encounter Mormons in the practice of their faith. They don't preach Jesus, they preach AGAINST Mormonism, and Jesus gets thrown in like a toy in a happy meal. And that is what the word "Anti" means. To be against something. And when they say "We love the Mormon people, we just hate the doctrine", this is not true. Virtually every anti-Mormon I know attacks the integrity of LDS leaders at all levels. They attack faithful Mormons as "blind", or deceived, or even, as has happened to me, as a "deceiver". Last time I checked, these are all Mormon "people". These people basically have found a hobby which they usually support via tax free donations. I don't doubt they don't make a lot of money. They don't deserve to, so I won't argue that point. They are getting what they have rightfully earned. But they really love to try to illustrate themselves as somehow being small, diligent humble workers of Christ victimized by a huge, evil Church. It is just so untrue, it is sad.

Unlike times past when anti-Mormons chased the Mormons at gunpoint, modern society limits their attacks to attempting to ruin the religious gatherings of the faithful through verbal abuse and mocking of religious values, or simply lying or misrepresenting historical circumstances to dissuade potential converts and shatter the faith of the membership. I once heard Ed Decker defend his lies about LDS beliefs by saying something to the effect "If you're in a wrestling match with the Devil, anything goes." So for most anti-Mormons, the end justifies the means.

Boyd K. Packer recounted how he was asked "What do you think of Anti-Mormons?", to which he responded "Not very often." He explained the brethren are so busy administering and growing the Church and its affairs, they really don't have much time to spend dealing with anti-Mormon issues. I think they see anti-Mormons as just the dogs barking outside the gates of the kingdom. They make a noise, and occasionally can bite, but they really just mostly seem to do nothing constructive, leaving piles on the neighbors lawn.

Being an "anti-Mormon" means that facts are assembled in a way convenient to your conclusions, regardless of reality. They will argue things like blood atonement, God having sex with Mary, Jesus being inferior, Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre or other issues without any appeal to facts. The main reason LDS leaders don't encourage members to engage anti-Mormon materials is so much of it is a waste of time. Moreover, the responses to anti-Mormons are only of value if they are found and used by those who have read the negative material. So labeling someone anti-Mormon is helpful in understanding they are not interested in growing your faith or knowledge of Mormonism, but just getting you out of the LDS Church. Examples of half-truths and denunciations about Mormons are so broadly available, providing specific examples is probably unnecessary. Answers are readily available at various locations, but I really like the FAIR Wiki for its balance of brief answers with thorough references for further research. Funny how you don't see anti-Mormon's attempting to critique the FAIR Wiki to point out its shortcomings. Why is that? I would say simply because it bites back with truth and facts to vapid attacks.

So there is no material relationship between the "n-word" and being an anti-Mormon. It is just an attempt in my opinion to wrongly attach their choices to the legacy of abuse suffered by those wrongly derided by the "n-word". Shame on those who try to make their efforts appear remotely on a par with the suffering of so many millions of oppressed people.

Has Ad Hominem Been Re-defined?

2008-09-26T13:40:00.000-07:00

People see themselves so differently from reality. In fact, due to the filter of our brains, we may not actually ever experience reality.

I was listening to some podcasts as an anti-Mormon and an ex-Mormon were discussing their stories. One guy says he "is not into the ad hominem" (attacks on people disqualify their argument, rather than their arguments). Frankly, I started laughing out loud. This is a man who has literally screamed at me on the street calling me a "deceiver". I handed him a flyer I wrote specifically addressing an activity he likes to do to try to make his point, mostly with Mormon youth. My 2 page flyer lays out every known historical account of the subject, providing quotes and references so folks can look them up themselves. It doesn't mention him or even discuss anti-Mormon claims, so it cannot be seen as a personal attack. It simply lays out those historical figures with first hand knowledge, and the statements they made. He refused to discuss the citations, but instead judged me and called me a deceiver. I am pretty sure that is the definition of Ad Hominem argumentation. It is also technically the logical fallacy of "poisoning the well".

Here is a guide to detecting an Ad Hominem attack:

If the response describes how unenlightened a person is: "They lack the holy Spirit, so they don't understand ...X" In other words, ignore their arguments because they don't have divine guidance. Sort of the defintion of a circular argument ("trust us, we have the Spirit, they don't") with ad hominem thrown in ("Disregard anything he says, he does not have the Spirit".)

Or they beg you not to read or discuss something because of a supposed defect of character: "He is a deciever (liar, fat guy, bald, has freckles, Body odor, etc.)." How does that impact the argument? Isn't the whole point of examing an argument to find out if it is valid? If so, then this type of attack is just to try to avoid having to respond to the questions such a person may create.

Or they tell you the person does not have the right credentials: "He/she does not represent the Mormon Church." Translation: "Their arguments are probably better than what the Church would make, and I don't want to have to deal with them." Sort of the back-handed compliment of the first set of excuses.

Lastly, if you hear someone say something like "I (or he or they) used to be a Mormon, and should know the truth about them." Run away. This is an inverted Ad Hominem attack. It presents as a sole qualification someone's pulse during a period of time. It tells you nothing about what they know, their attitude or participation while a member, or their current expertise on any subject. It is designed to try to cancel out listening to the arguments of Mormons by indirectly attacking their integrity, and once again avoiding discussing the merits of the arguments being presented. If presented as the primary, or in some cases the only, qualification, you can rest assured they don't know anything of a substantial nature. And lest that be taken as an ad hominem attack, I would say check out what they say. If they say Mormons officially believe or did believe in things like God having sex with Mary, or the Adam God Doctrine, or that Joseph Smith practices polygamy simply as a pervert, then there are plenty of non-LDS and LDS sources which can easily refute such assertions. Then you can draw a conclusion about the reliability of this person as a source of information, and not have to engage in ad hominem attacks.

A teacher soon learns which students do their schoolwork because they understand the subject matter. If they constantly produce poor work, the teacher knows what to watch out for, even as he/she reads a bad paper from the student again. The student gets to make his case, he just loses trustworthiness when the work is consistently bad that suddenly he is going to submit something brilliant.

So it is with those who claim to hate ad hominem arguments, and yet resort to such when confronted with arguments they cannot answer. Beware.

Do you want Peace, Happiness and Long Life? Be a Mormon!

2008-09-25T06:43:00.001-07:00

What is the litmus test for truth?

Is it figuring out really complex theological dogma? Is it being rich in wealth? Is it getting any girl or guy you want? Is it winning an argument?

No. Truth is peace that comes from doing the right thing, even if others don't approve. I know too many folks who struggle in their lives for acceptance by others, precisely because they cannot accept themselves. And if you can't accept yourself, you surely don't feel like God accepts you either.

Simplicity, even amid complexity, brings happiness. So a faithful marriage is better than any faithless fling, flirtation or pornographic titillation can ever be. Because you are accepted of your spouse, and your spouse accepts you. Betrayal in this arena brings some of the deepest pain a person will ever experience. Success brings comfort in the journey.

The higher the quality of life it seems is strangely correlated to the length of life. Looking out for your personal health is an act of love for your spouse, children and loved ones who continually deal with the aftermath of personal neglect even, or maybe especially, after one dies. It seems basic, consistent health choices improve the quality of ones life, whatever the god-given circumstances of the beginning of one's life.

Studies show Mormons spend more time studying the Bible, in prayer, teaching their children and sharing their faith with others, and engaging in service, than any other faith. Studies also show active LDS enjoy the highest sense of life satisfaction of all people. And the IRS has identified the Mormons as the faith most giving of material wealth in America, while they at the same time are the most highly educated of any denomination as well. In fact, surveys show the LDS faith is the only religion in the US where more education is a predictor of religious participation. In other words, the smarter you are, the more likely you are to be an active Mormon, but the less likely to be active in other religious traditions.

Mormon temple marriages have the lowest rates of divorce of any religion in America. Of course it is not the act of being married in the temple, since there are divorces among those people too. It is a commitment to the principles such a marriage is designed to incorporate which helps steer couples through the obstacles of life, and end up still in love.

Probably as a result of the above principles and the traditional interpretation of the LDS health code called the Word of Wisdom, Mormons live on average 8 years longer, with a higher quality and satisfaction, than the US average. This is the longest addition to life of any identifiable group in the US.

Anti-Mormons complain that LDS doctrine is so simple it allows every person their own spin on many doctrines. I don't think that is an accident. God did not ever say a belief in the Trinity as defined in 381 A.D., and not 325 A.D. or some other counsel, is essential to salvation. Being LDS is a simple, comfortable, happy faith. Those who claim otherwise are usually those who think that God doesn't care how they live their lives. To some extent, he doesn't. That is, you can live life as you please, he just doesn't bless those who stray defiantly away. Come back and find peace. There are tests which make it easy to tell who follows the True Jesus:

By this shall all men know ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. (John 13:35)

There are lots of nice people in churches, but Jesus' Church (Matt 16:18) is an institution of love, bringing the fruits of peace, happiness and comfort in the journey. It does not attack other faiths, but invites those in error to come and see where Christ really is.

Peace is the gift He left for us.

Shawn McCraney's Attitude About Research

2008-09-22T12:01:00.000-07:00

I thought those who think I might exaggerate when describing anti-Mormon approaches to research and accuracy being somewhat shy of the mark of "rigorous", here is a statement written by Shawn McCraney about his labeling such work as being analogous to a child molester's abuse of children. Read for yourself:

Re: Van Hale Interview

by Shawn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:45 pm
Nothing has changed in my opinion with regard to The Bob and his points. I do not read them because I believe anyone who would defend Joseph Smith's Mormonism is not worthy of being read. I've read Joseph Smith's gospel. I've read LDS doctrine. A self-appointed defender of Mormonism will receive no respect or time from me because no matter what they say - no matter what they say - they are defending Joseph Smith's Mormonism. In my opinion taking the time to listen to their points is like listening to a pedophile promote his own pre-school business - theres just far too much twisted ulterior motive involved.

Hope this helps.

Note that he highlights and repeats the "no matter what they say". Shawn's Born Again Mormon website states its mission to members of the LDS Church is:

...[we] seek to confront and help remove any doctrines which demand anything more than faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.

I guess I don't get how to harmonize an outreach to LDS members which confronts their doctrines but avoids talking about their doctrines. Much of Shawn's attack material is designed to attack the human problems of Joseph Smith and his successors. But even when he discusses Baptism for the Dead, he only confronts the strawman he created on TV, and then avoids discussing the LDS evidence with active LDS members. Since he has a section in his "Purpose" area on his website called "To disaffected members of the LDS Church", I assume the section "To members of the LDS Church" means believing members.

But I have learned that nothing is so simple when anti-Mormons are concerned about losing an agrument, or at least looking like they might not be the expert they hold themselves out to be.

Food for thought when you accuse Mormons of not representing themselves. Odds are, they are really not invited.

Bob

Shawn McCraney: Still Ducking

2008-09-16T19:56:00.000-07:00

Check out video reviews on youtube under the answeringantimormons heading.

I called in early to Shawn McCraney's show, Heart of the Matter, because a call screener several weeks ago said I should because I would not make it on due to the time constraints. So I called in at 8:17pm, identified myself, and was told I would be on hold until the other callers got through who were first time callers. At 8:40 pm Shawn noted the lines were full, but no caller information was present, and he had taken about 6 calls so far. Since they only have 4 phone lines, that means he went past me twice, and now was stuck. A minute or two later the call screener, Jeannie, came on and said Shawn would not be taking my call because I was, in so many words, too knowledgeable to let get on the air with Shawn. They said if I was an LDS official, they would let me on the air, but because I was just a knowledgeable Mormon without the "official" title, they did not want to have me on air. Jeannie said lots of Mormons call in to correct Shawn, and she said Shawn was not correct claiming that no Mormons challenged his facts. He just does not let them on the air.

I find it remarkable that the support crew and groupies of Shawn don't understand that someone who claims the Mormons are a Prideful Church of deceivers, don't connect the dots that Shawn is dishonest about his claims about the callers into the show, and they know it first hand, and he does it to avoid engaging knowledgeable Mormons who could correct him. That involves both pride and honesty, and they have first hand knowledge. Go figure. Classic Koolaid drinkers, too committed to act with integrity, I believe. Isn't that what Shawn says faithful Mormons are like? Hmmmm.

Here is the email I sent to Shawn tonight:

Once again I am dazzled by the man who proudly beats his chest and claims time and again that he never gets his facts wrong about the LDS Church, and that no Mormons ever call in to say he has it wrong, standing firmly in the petticoats of his call screeners to make sure knowledgeable Mormons don't accidentally get on the air.

Shawn, it is a lie that Mormons don't attempt to correct your facts. And it speaks volumes that you consider such lies OK because you keep those Mormons off of your show.

Shawn, the more you claim to want to starkly portray the differences between Mormons and non-Mormons, the more absurd your reasoning reveals itself that you don't want to discuss Mormonism with practicing Mormons. If you were not actually afraid of talking to Mormons who know LDS doctrine, why do you limit yourself to the disaffected, uneducated and sometimes genuinely confused? Because your pride won't risk getting bested on your own show. I suspect you may argue with this email, but that too is safe, since it cannot respond.
Have fun, I will put this on my blog at wwwdotpromormon dot blogspot dotcom .
Bob

I don't know anyone who can really defend their hero Shawn, but why not send me your thoughts, or maybe tell about your attempts to get on his show. Or attempt to defend him. That would be rich.

State of the Art Anti-Mormonism

2008-09-08T10:00:00.000-07:00

I thought this would be a good time to review the 5 "best" anti-Mormon arguments against the LDS Church.

5. DNA and the Book of Mormon. This one started with such promise for the Anti-Mormons. Then LDS scientists pointed out how incapable this line of attack was in actually proving anything, pro-or-anti-, relative to Mormonism. While such one-trick-pony-advocates as Simon Southerton screamed that their position was being ignored or the LDS position was shifting, in the end (and it has in fact reached the end!) the glaring flaws in their argumentation have caused them to once again argue things other than DNA to attempt to support any relevance of their DNA arguments.

4. Monotheism in the Bible. The idea is that the Bible clearly teaches their is only one God, and not a plurality of true, divine beings. This argument continues to come up, despite the fact that the universe of people who have studied Biblical beliefs of God in their historic and linguistic contexts has reduced to specialized argumentation those who seriously advocate this. By that I mean you have to be a conservative Christian who either a.) simply ignores the archaeological and linguistic evidence harvested in droves in the past 100 years, or b.) you argue it is just a matter of heretic liberals smearing the "true doctrine of monotheism" with unjustified interpretation of evidence. The reality is that the work by Patai, Barker, Dever, Mark Smith, Michael Heiser or Jason BeDuhn and virtually all Greek language grammarians make belief in the concept of exclusive and strict monotheism in the Bible as the orthodox belief of Hebrews and Christians impossible to maintain. Not to mention more than a dozen EXPLICIT statements acknowledging the existence of muliple REAL gods, as well as it being the aim of salvation of mankind.

3. Satan and Jesus are not spirit brothers. This is an interesting position because it requires denial of specific scriptures for anti-Mormons to maintain it. In Job 1:6 we have all the sons of God appearing before God, "and satan was among them." We have Hebrews 12:9 telling us the Father is the father of spirits. Since Jesus had a spirit and satan and his devils are also called spirits in scripture, we are left to equate why all spirits are created by the Father but are not really brothers and sisters when it comes to Satan and Jesus. Mormons of course feel this is thrown out simply as a distraction, since at least some early Christians taught and believed this to be the case as well, and it has no bearing on how Good Christ is or how Evil Satan is.

2. Joseph Smith was human. This isn't exactly how they say it. They say things like "how could a prophet do...X?" My current favorite response is to agree, and say if prophets express opinions which are demonstrably false, and contend it is true or a revelation, then we probably have a case of a false prophet before us, according to their standards. Then we read Titus 1:12-13 by Paul: "The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies [i.e. lazy gluttons]. This witness is true." If you do believe all people from Crete are lying, evil, lazy gluttons, then this may in fact represent truth to you. For the rest of us, this is obviously Paul's opinion, and a flawed one at that. So now we must decide if should throw out the 13 or 14 letters attributed to Paul (cutting the New Testament in half. That should increase readership!) because of Paul's poor judgment in this area, or if we acknowledge all of the surviving writing attibuted to inspiration by God is filtered through flawed humans. The Mormons believe the Bible to be the word of God, so far as it is translated correctly. It doesn't specify the translation is from copyist to copyist, but rather is broader, allowing people to use some common sense.

1. Finally, the #1 Anti-Mormon attack is that Mormons don't honor the role of Jesus. I have heard anti-Mormons say they have sat through entire sacrament meetings on Fast Sunday, and never heard mention of Jesus in the testimonies being born. I will say it here: I think these people are liars. As a convert of over 30 years, I have sat through hundreds of such meetings, and never once had such an experience. If anti's were honest, they would acknowledge that they don't believe in the same God as the Jews or the Muslims, a claim they often make. Neither the Jews or the Muslims believe in a Trinitarian deity. In fact, theologians of both groups denounce Christians as apostate from the doctrines of the Old Testament. Mormons love Jesus. We just don't believe that his theological value is visible to man as the result of unrevealed intellectual reflection to try to harmonize the false concept of monotheism with the dilema of the New Testament witness of a plurality of Divine beings (John 1:1-2).

There you have it, as I see it. What do you think?

What Do Anti-Mormons Read to Lose Braincells

2008-08-18T17:11:00.000-07:00

I am a zombie. I have no original thoughts. My mind is filled only with LDS propaganda. I will tell lies if my faith is threatened.

OK, not really.

But I am regularly accused of such things. Just last Tuesday night my anti-Mormon friend Robert Verdin said he thought I probably lie to support my beliefs.

This after he acknowledged after 30 years of evangelizing the Mormons, he had never read the Book of Mormon. On Tuesday he acknowledged that he had not even bothered to look at, let alone read, the 40+ pages I provided him in support of the Book of Abraham, responding directly to attacks he had made.

He is sure the Book of Abraham is false, he said, because Joseph Smith was such a bad guy, it could not possibly be true.

I suppose they said the same things about Elisha after the she-bears tore dozens of children to shreds in the Bible. I am pretty sure personal habits are not reflective of truth claims of a prophet's mission.

But let's exam a couple of claims Anti-Mormons make which require one to actually ignore facts.

Bill McKeever calls me a deceiver because I point out that he ignores the eyewitness accounts concerning the nature of the Gold Plates and their weight. All the witnesses said they weighed 40-60 pounds. Additionally we have statements by his wife, family members and other observers who handled and carried the plates. These included his young sisters, neighbors and friends carrying the plates. This is in addition to the 8 witnesses who testified of the plates dozens of times. Martin Harris held them for over an hour on his lap; Joseph's brother William Smith said they weighed 40-60 pounds, and Joseph is quoted as saying they weighed 40-60 pounds. William Smith also said they were composed of copper and gold. Gold was their color, not their assayed composition. An 8 karat gold ring is a gold alloy and also the color "gold". We know that there is an alloy, Tumbaga, made of Gold and Copper, found in Central America, which is a perfect candidate for the material the Gold Plates were made from.

How much does Bill say they weighed? Somewhere between 100-240 pounds. And his source?

He has none. He has calculated this, or he accepts other people's calculations. But when I point that out, he says I am a deceiver! That makes sense.

Robert Verdin says the figures in Facsimile #1 of the Book of Abraham, showing a man holding a knife attempting to kill the man on the lion couch, is proof, says Robert, that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Why? Because some Egyptologists have asserted that it should be a picture of a man with a jackal's head with a bird flying over him.

The problem: There are three witnesses who saw the original scroll from which facsimile #1 is made, one of which was a non-LDS minister and critic, who noted there was a man holding a knife. And further, Kerry Shirts has provided references to similar looking artifacts.

As noted above, Robert's response is to refuse to read the material, and instead asserted that NO LDS SCHOLAR CAN BE TRUSTED! Even the other non-LDS folks sitting at the table protested how indefensible such a statement is.

Lastly, I spent three hours talking with a youth group two weeks ago, and two of their pastors. We spent more than two hours discussing the winter 1830 mission to Canada by Oliver Cowdery and Hiram Page, and two additional companions, to sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon. You can read the entire story here. Suffice it to say at the time we both did not understand the issues involved. They argued Joseph Smith was a false prophet based on David Whitmer's erroneous account, and I acknowledged that they were correct, based on Whitmer's account. But I said I did not think it was the correct story. That was true. Sadly, we wasted most of our time discussing something which was false, instead of the Gospel. The sad part is they think they know what Mormonism believes. They don't. They know a distortion provided them by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

I discovered today that Rob Sivulka, someone whom I have never thought was much of a scholar because of his sloppy research, now has the Canadian mission on his website as one of the "false prophecies" of Joseph Smith. Oh that he would someday do a little of his own research before he launched on the Mormons. Those actually involved in the Mission believed the revelation received by Joseph Smith was actually correctly fulfilled.

So do Anti-Mormons actually lose brain cells? Of course not. But they do tend to be unbelievably hypocritical in their attacks on LDS gullibility when they typically have their laundry list of false issues they preach. Gullibility is not a disease related to California Seagulls eating Utah Crickets.

Earning Condemnation

2008-07-22T09:43:00.000-07:00

All mankind is fallen. This is a tenet of every Christian religion or denomination of which I am familiar. But the Bible also teaches that through Jesus Christ, all mankind has been made right with God.

When I tell people this, especially non-LDS, they want to argue the point. Because I would rather discuss than argue, I just turn to the scriptures, and let them defend me:

Yes, Adam's one sin brought condemnation upon everyone, but Christ's one act of righteousness makes all people right in God's sight and gives them life.(Romans 5:18, NLT)

This would seem to present a significant problem for folks who believe God doesn't really want to save ALL of his children. Don't misunderstand me, Paul is developing a masterful doctrine of LDS salvation between Romans 1 to Romans 8. Being made right, or justified (as many translations render it) is not of permanent duration, and so Romans 6 teaches that even those who believe in Christ will be condemned if they do not obey Christ.

But that is the rub. How can one "obey" anything, if, as many supposed "Christians" teach, God has set in people, without their choosing, hearts which are totally depraved of righteous desires to follow Christ?

In the Old Testament, God teaches that there is a statute for dealing with accidentally killing someone. It is called "manslaughter", and one who accidentally kills another, that is with no intent of doing harm, cannot be held to the usual penalty, which is death. See Numbers 35:9-34.

God absolutely hates scales or balances which are uneven. (Proverbs 11:1, 16:11, 20:23)

If only God can put a desire or will into a person to exercise faith, to call on Christ for salvation, then it is impossible for him to condemn to death those who lack that desire. To folks who believe "free will" does not really exist in the sense of being truly free to accept or reject the message of Christ, I am struck by the message of Romans. Christ has already set everyone free.

How long we retain freedom is entirely dependent upon our personal wills being turned to God and faith in Christ. And that is a choice.

"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." (Genesis 3:22)

I would welcome someone showing me where this ability to discern Good and Evil was repealed. If such a passage of scripture is not forthcoming, then I must conclude that we each earn our own condemnation, and therefore all of us also have the ability to appeal to Christ and exercise faith unto salvation through the Grace of Jesus Christ. The twisted reading of scripture leading one to conclude we live in total depravity is the work of men, and not God.

Unless, of course, uneven balances are no longer the abomination they once were to God. But that would make him a changeable God, and creates a whole bunch of problems in and of itself.

What is an "Anti-Mormon"

2008-07-13T05:31:00.000-07:00

Is using the term "Anti-Mormon" prejudicial and loaded in attaching negative connotations to a conversation?

No.

It simply explains the activity of the person involved. If someone were truly "Pro-Christ" and loved those involved with Mormonism, they would have the courage of convictions to preach what they believe, and their "Anti-Mormonism" would virtually disappear. They may say something like "We believe temples have been replaced by Christ and the Holy Spirit." They may then say such a relationship to Christ and the Holy Spirit is all that is necessary for salvation. Notice how it is unnecessary to mention LDS beliefs about the temple if they tell you about their beliefs about the temple.

Where is the line that crosses over from "Pro-Christian" to "Anti-Mormon"? Is there anyone reading this who really wonders? When invectives are used to characterize the adherents and especially the leaders of any faith as conspiratorial, deceptive and acting in bad faith, or if false recountings of history are told to provide shock value, or especially if one is paid to tell people about how terrible another faith is, they are clearly an "anti-X". So when you read the comments from Aaron from two posts ago where he acknowledges his sole purpose in engaging me was to waste my time to prevent my interaction with others, and he does so under the guise of being interested in the LDS doctrines, he confirms he is not about preaching what he believes in but working against people of other faiths, in this case he is an "Anti-Mormon".

It seems to me Aaron should be significantly less sensitive about being called an "Anti-Mormon" since he writes that is exactly what he DOES. Let's walk through the logic briefly. Did Aaron speak with me because I was seeking him out to attack his faith? No. Did we even discuss my beliefs concerning his faith? No

Did Aaron use this tactic on anyone among the "Christian" apologists? Ask him, but I doubt it. So this is a special tactic he has reserved for me as a Mormon apologist.

This is what puts the lie to the oft repeated statements "We hate Mormonism, but we love the Mormon people."

I am Mormon. This was an act deliberately designed to interfere with me without regard to my feelings or welfare. It was something he did intentionally. His interest was a lie, and he did it strictly to stop a "Mormon".

That creates several issues here:

It affirms Aaron is an Anti-Mormon. If he doesn't like the title, maybe he should consider acting in other ways. Along with his buddy Mr. Bill, who literally SCREAMS at me that I am a deceiver because I challenge the false representations he makes about the Gold Plates (honestly, it is too funny to watch as he explains why we should accept his calculated values for the weight of the Gold Plates instead of the statements by witnesses, including a reliable second hand account from Joseph Smith.), I must say that I don't really feel, see or experience that swelling tide of love for the Mormon people.

Now if they want to preach what they believe will save people, then more power to them. But their main point in teaching is to create doubt in the youth or others whom they think they can shock with descriptions of LDS history, doctrine or practice.

Aaron's attempt to restrict the use of the phrase "Anti-Mormon" on his own website is sort of an "Alice in Wonderland" approach to not calling things as they really are.

Lastly, I believe the Anti-Mormons provide wonderful examples for the members and investigators of Mormonism. So I like them out there, because in defending my faith their attacks always work to the Church's benefit. As the Church's efforts to promote transparency of LDS history and doctrine continue to be manifested in things such as the "Joseph Smith Papers Project" and more engaging of the Church's critics by informed members, the excesses of Anti-Mormons, and their deceitful tactics, make the contrast between being "Pro-Mormon" and "Anti-Mormons" all the clearer. If they could win in the arena of defending their ideas and philosophies, they would logically want to take that approach. But they don't. Keep telling people the plates weighed 100-120 pounds. Ignore the historical first hand accounts of 40-60 pounds. And then let's let people decide who is grasping at straws, and who is providing accurate history.

Just remember, if Anti-Mormons attempt to disrupt my personal activities as they did in Manti when I am neither an official spokesman for the LDS Church or any other organization, they are firmly in "Anti-Mormon" territory. I am a Mormon, and Aaron was Anti-Bob practicing and defending his Mormon beliefs. I am not an "institution". I am Pro-Mormon.

It doesn't get much clearer.

Peace.

Respecting People and their Faith

2008-07-10T18:41:00.000-07:00

Did Jesus or Paul ever attack someone who held a different faith?

No! Not just "NO", emphatically "NO".

Jesus cut loose on hypocrites of his own faith, Judaism. He never says, "Oh you apostate Samaritans, you're going to Heck." Or, "You Romans are messed up." No. And neither did Paul.

In fact, Paul lived 3 years in Ephesus, where the goddess Diana was revered. After 3 years, Paul had converted thousands, and the silversmiths were losing a fortune. So they whip up a posse to go kill him and his companions, and take him to city hall. The town clerk, realizing he has a riot on his hands, calms the crowd by reminding him they are neither "robbers of Churches, nor yet blasphemers", and if they have evidence or witnesses, they need to bring them forward. No one steps up, and the crowd is dismissed. (See Acts 19:21-41)

Think about it: After 3 years, no one among a rioting crowd could step forward to accuse Paul of preaching AGAINST Diana. NONE. Even though the silversmiths claimed to each other that Paul taught idols were not gods, which would have been blasphemy and treason if had Paul done so (Acts 19:26), the mayor notes it is not the case, and there are no witnesses.

Last time I checked the anti-Mormon sites, they were reminding everyone that Mormons are not Christians. We have a different Jesus. We worship a false god.

WWJD? What would Paul do? Well, we know what they wouldn't do.

So I guess we have another way, besides personal revelation, to know which preachers are corrupt. We can just watch and know that no missionary makes attacking another faith the focus of their ministry.

See Acts 5:42, 17:3; 1 Cor 1:17, 23; 2 Cor 4:5; Eph. 3:8; Phil 1:18; Col 1:27-28; 1 Pet 3:15.

Or I guess we could just ignore the Great Commission, and instead of teaching people to observe the things Christ taught, we could teach against every other faith.

Call us silly, but we Mormons are going to go with the Biblical model of preaching.

Peace.

4th Annual Hug Your Anti In Manti

2008-06-14T23:45:00.000-07:00

My wife thinks I am nuts. I am back in Manti.

OK, so I went Thursday and was the first target a fellow from Idaho Falls witnessed to. I suspect that is sort of like picking Darth Vader to test out your new light saber you found at the bottom of a power shaft. He seemed a little unnerved, but I was nice. Anyway, after raining on his party, I politely excused myself, and walked off.

I found Aaron Shafovaloff standing in the street, and he was wrapping up speaking with a couple of folks, so I kind of small talked with him. Then he started asking if I believed I worked or merited salvation. Despite trying a dozen different ways explaining that while I believe Jesus is the Savior of those who obey him (Hebrews 5:9), and therefore by implication is NOT the Savior of those who disobey him, our reason for obedience is love, not "earning" salvation, since it is impossible to earn or work our own salvation. He said many Mormons have said we must work to obtain exaltation and therefore we merit salvation. I kept telling him depending upon the context of the statements, people may say that, but if you put the question to them whether they could become perfect without Christ, no LDS with even half a conscious brain in Church could come away thinking they don't need him. I reminded him that President Kimball said no one, no matter how good, could be saved without the atonement of Christ, and that no matter how powerful the atonement of Christ, no one can be saved without doing their part. It is the very nature of a covenant that it is a promise between two parties.

Aaron kept saying that meant I did believe my works merited or earned salvation, and I said "I am just going to stand on Hebrews 5:9, with the Biblical Christians, and that speaks for itself." Aaron's style is to shoot questions at you rapid fire, let you answer a little bit, quickly restate your position into his words turning it into whatever he sees as non-Christian, and then trying to make you see why your statement is false. He was very rude, talking over me, raising his voice, and repeatedly engaging in sarcasm, even though I treated the conversation seriously throughout. A companion of his standing nearby repeatedly tapped Aaron on the shoulder signaling to lower his voice and calm down, and I finally said I needed to move on, to which he replied "I accomplished my goal, I kept you from talking to others." I told him insincere conversation was sinful, and he needed to repent, and I walked away.

A few minutes later he caught up to me, and wanted to say he was over the top and wished me well, and I told him I didn't particularly care, it was obvious he did not really care what the LDS Church or members believe. He said he treated me differently because I am "an arm chair apologist". I told him there is no excuse, and kept walking.

The second night, unbelievably, Bill McKeever had his little wagon again from last year, but this year he had stacks of weights. When he saw me, he challenged me to grab fifty pound of weights and better be able to out run him. One of the kids standing by, a lanky tall teenager all of 140 pounds or so grabbed the weights and casually started walking off. Bill said "Come back", but the kid kept walking, then started running towards the food court. It was funny because Bill had to run after him, but the skinny kid just got tired and had to put the weights down, otherwise a big kid might have made him go quite a distance.

So I of course told the folks to keep asking him how much the witnesses who lifted the plates said they weighed. Since the witnesses said 40-60 pounds, and Bill tells people over 100 lbs, he gets really mad at being exposed as distorting the historical record. Bill yelled, very loudly, about how deceptive I was, and an anti-Mormon fellow whom I have seen before, but who refused to tell me his name, walked over and said "You just have a spirit of contention about you." So I told him I understood Jude in the Bible told us to contend for the Faith, and I wondered if he had decided that portion of the Bible was unimportant, because I found my behavior consistent with scripture, since I don't yell at people or call them names, but just respond with facts and scriptures. He said he had had a stroke in February (I think), and he was here because we needed the truth, and he reiterated how I was just contentious. I told him I was fine with that, that since he did not believe in the full teachings of the Bible, I was comfortable I had the truth, and, as I do with all the "faith only" Evangelicals, I asked him who was it that Jesus was Savior for, those who believed or obey? He said believe, and I asked him why he did not believe the teachings of the Bible, and again gave the Hebrews 5:8-9 reference, and quoted it to him, adding that I found it pretty much indefensible on his part to attack the Mormons as false when he rejected the express teachings of scripture. He got so made, he literally almost started to spit as he spoke. I asked him what happened to that calm, judgmental demeanor he just had, and how I found it funny that because he is losing the debate, he becomes angry. He walked off, and later he walked up to me as I was speaking with Bob Verdin while he was speaking with two teenage LDS boys, and this man told me I was just a trouble maker and should leave. I laughed, and Bob Verdin said "It's alright, he is my friend."

Last story for today. I was standing talking with some of the 34 women and girls who dressed up as Joseph Smith's wives, and asking them who among them had had children other than Emma, and just sort of pursuing the conversation with them, when this short fellow walks up to my right hand side and starts mumbling something. I ignored him initially, and then asked him if he was praying for me. He said he was, and then he proceeded to stalk me for about an hour, everywhere I went. He finally left when he bore his testimony to me that I did not have the Melchizedek priesthood. I told him as far as I could determine, there are only two "true" priesthoods named in the Bible, the Melchizedek and the Aaronic/Levitical. I asked him which priesthood Peter had in mind in 1 Peter 2:5, 9 and Revelation 1:6, 5:10, 20:6? Did he believe a non-Levite could be a Levitical priest, and if not, did that not leave just a single choice? Anyway, after praying for me for a while, he left.

As I walked away that evening, Bill McKeever was with a group of folks and I said something to them which I don't remember, but Mr. Bill started yelling what a deceiver I was, and I respond by pointing out how it surprised me how angry a good Christian like Mr. Bill was, who claimed to love the Mormons and have a heart for the truth. Mr. Bill just kept yelling what a deceiver I was, so I just said "God bless you", and walked away.

"the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center."(1 Nephi 16:2). Especially when they know they are distorting LDS doctrine and history, has been my experience.

More later.

3rd Annual Meet an Anti in Manti

2007-06-15T16:57:00.000-07:00

I was in Manti last night to see the doings. A few things were immediately noticeable:
1. The LDS crowd was pretty small. It may have been a normal size crowd for a Thursday, but there were 5,000 or less folks there, based on the large number of empty chairs.
2. The anti's are about as they always are: Not all that informed.
2.A. I saw Aaron S., the fanatically reformed faith "missionary" who advocates God as the ultimate narcissist, and his attack on people in the LDS Church who speculate God may have been a man who actually sinned when he was a man is laughable. As anyone knows who actually, carefully reads the King Follett Discourse, which is the only document we have by a president of the Church supposedly under inspiration (I say supposedly not because I doubt it is inspired, but because it is not accepted as scripture, so the degree of inspiration is what is in question.), Joseph says the Father lived on a planet and lived a sinless life which Jesus Christ modeled his own life after.

"The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power-to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious-in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. " Joseph Smith, TotPJS

Seems pretty clear to me.

My favorite Aaron S. line was the following: "God is so great, even he cannot praise himself more than he is deserving to be praised." Well, at least we have established there are things even the Reformed God cannot do. I love this line of reasoning. It completely ignores that god cannot force our obedience.

2b. I was trying to get Aaron S. to respond to Rev. 1:6's statement in the King James Version which reads: Jesus has "made us kings and priests unto god and his father." So does god have a Father? According to this verse he does. So while I am trying to get Aaron S. to respond, a woman walks up to me and says "I can answer that question for you." I said great. As we discussed it she informed me she knew grammar, and that the God was actually Jesus, and the Father was the Father. She then tried to prove the Book of Mormon teaches a trinitarian god, and a young LDS girl, probably about 14, walked up and listened, and started to ask a question, and the woman told her not to interrupt. So after she cited Alma 11, and 3 Nephi 20:35, I said, "if your point is the Book of Mormon is promoting a trinitarian doctrine, then it could not possibly contain the doctrine of exaltation of men to become like God, right?" She said "Yes". I said, "let's read 3 Nephi 28:10: And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;"
She said that had nothing to do with exaltation or being like God, and so we read the next verse:
"11 And the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and the Father giveth the Holy Ghost unto the children of men, because of me." "Clearly the conversation is about the godhead, since all three persons of the Godhead are discussed right there, even if you don't want to comprehend the English words of verse 10." The lady got a twisted look on her face, then snapped at the young LDS girl, "I don't like your attitude." The girl said, "I didn't even say anything." The woman replied "It's rude for you to smile just because you think he's proved his point." At that point the LDS laughed, and I had the honor of Bill McKeever walking up to me.
3. Not all anti's are created equally. McKeever walked up and said I was a deceitful, deceiving person, and was there just to confuse people. Of course, his mean spiritedness was such that I grabbed my camcorder and told him to please repeat himself so I could get it on film. Pretty funny. The best discussion which anti's try to use all the time is citing Moroni 10:32.

Here is how their reasoning goes:
If Jesus' grace is only sufficient if we are obedient and cast off sin, you don't really need grace, nor do you really have a chance to be saved. They say we, in effect, create our own grace.

Unfortunately, they conspicuously ignore verse 33:
"33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot."
Perfection in Christ is done through Grace, and the atonement of Christ. Which is precisely the message of 2 Nep 25:23
23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

The last point is when they attack the phrase "after all we can do". Anti's like to speak of this phrase as if it is a command that we must do everything, then grace saves us. It is the opposite. No matter how much we do, it will never be enough, so we must be reconciled to God and have faith in Christ to be saved, which is by grace. We did not earn it.

More after tonight's pageant.

It Doesn't Matter at Heart

2006-11-08T17:38:00.000-08:00

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.

Ain't Got a Heart in Real Matters

2006-10-30T06:33:00.000-08:00

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

Born Again without a Desire for Truth

2006-10-25T07:31:00.000-07:00

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.

Confronting Confrontationalists

2006-07-21T16:51:00.000-07:00

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.

April 2006 Conference Review

2006-04-03T16:20:00.000-07:00

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.

Someone Needs to Get Married I Think

2005-10-01T23:53:00.000-07:00

Once again I was accused of being dishonest over the issue of whether God and Mary had sex.

First, I don't really care, one way or the other. Honestly, God can do no wrong, and since I believe Jesus was His only begotten son in the Flesh, the mechanics are irrelevant to me.

OK, that being said, the Church does not have an official position on the mechanics. Here is what Elder Harold B. Lee said in 1969. He was the 2nd most senior apostle after President McKay and President Smith. We have a very clear statement speaking directly upon this subject:

Teachers should not speculate on the manner of Christ's birth. We are very much
concerned that some of our Church teachers seem to be obsessed of the idea of
teaching doctrine which cannot be substantiated and making comments beyond what the Lord has actually said.
You asked about the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the Savior. If teachers were wise in speaking of this matter about which the Lord has said but very little, they would rest their discussion on this subject with merely the words which are recorded on this subject in Luke 1:34-35: "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
Remember that the being who was brought about by [Mary's] conception was a divine personage. We need not question His method to accomplish His purposes. Perhaps we would do well to remember the words of Isaiah 55:8-9: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."Let the Lord rest His case with this declaration and wait until He sees fit to tell us more. (1/2/69)

Seems pretty clear. One would think Harold B. Lee would know the official position of the LDS Church. He is clear in saying more specific statements than this are personal speculation on the part of the authors.

Talmage teaches thus:

That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the 'Son of the Highest.' We Believe That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof;
...Miracles are commonly regarded as occurrences in opposition to the laws of nature. Such a conception is plainly erroneous, for the laws of nature are
inviolable. However, as human understanding of these laws is at best but imperfect, events strictly in accordance with natural law may appear contrary thereto...
...True, the event was unprecedented; true also it has never been paralleled; but that the virgin birth would be unique was as truly essential to the fulfillment
of prophecy as that it should occur at all. That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the "Son of the Highest." ... (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ: A Study of the Messiah and His Mission According to Holy Scriptures Both Ancient and Modern, p.77.)

So you have Talmage calling the birth of Jesus a "Miracle" and "unprecedented", and beyond human understanding, and still I hear people say Talmage is saying God had sex with Mary. Please, there is nothing unprecedented, miraculous or unknown about how a child comes forth from sex. Moreover, he called her "Mary the Virgin" (page 87).

A brief study of the word "conceive". We find it in Luke 1:31: "to become pregnant; conceive." Mary is said to be conceiving in her womb. That is the normal place. Is there any implication of sex?

Last point: I have pointed this out previously. The Seer, published by Orson Pratt, was thoroughly denounced by the LDS leadership and Church, including Orson Pratt, as a work which should never be considered LDS. Here is what it says:

"But the Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star, of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 contains doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works or parts of works are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed." Signed the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, INCLUDING Orson Pratt, its author. Deseret News on the 23rd of August, 1865.

Only a person of extreme ill-will toward the LDS Church could attempt to use anything out of the Seer. And without co-publishing the Church's denunciation with it, one is left to wonder about the ethics of such a person or group thus involved.

Sixteen years after Harold B. Lee's comments, Bruce R. McConkie published his final book. He wrote the following in explaining the Virgin Birth:

"The mortal Jesus, as a man among men, had both a father and a mother. God was his Father, and Mary was his mother. He was begotten by a Holy Man, by that God whose name is Man of Holiness; and he was conceived in the womb of a mortal woman. Mary, a virgin of Nazareth in Galilee, was "the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh." (1 Nephi 11:18.) She was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost; "she was carried away in the Spirit" (1 Nephi 11:19); she conceived "by the power of the Holy Ghost," and she brought forth a son, "even the Son of God" (Alma 7:10). That Son, who is called Christ, is the Only Begotten, the only offspring of the Father born into mortality. As a man, as God's only Son, his only mortal Son, he overcame the world." Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, 1985, Deseret Book, Chapter 9, pg 74:

While Br. McConkie's explanation could still be interpreted as implying sex, it clearly does not REQUIRE that meaning. And frankly, Elder Harold B. Lee's statement still would be controlling, since he is limiting his statement to official doctrine, whereas Br. McConkie was publishing his opinion. General Authorities are allowed to have opinions, they just are not allowed to say they are official doctrine. Reading the inside cover of Elder McConkie's book will indicate what his writing was.

Enough for now. The LDS Church is true. I love these cute little diversions. Don't discuss the big things. Look at the churches who cannot decide if we are all predestined robots, if baptism is essential, if good works really matter, or if the doctrine of the Trinity could be any more flawed, but we spend time discussing the method of impregnating Mary. What a waste of time. The sad thing is that the person most concerned about this will argue regardless of what the official position of the Church is. This is the best he can do to show his perception of inconsistency, because he doesn't allow the LDS Church to define itself. He has a standard he has created, and since the Church does not conform to his criteria, he keeps chasing his tail. Let me issue this challenge: The official Church website at www.LDS.org. Find the doctrine that God had sex with Mary. You can find the Church's views on baptism, salvation, priesthood. If this is such a big deal, find it there. Then drop me a line. Otherwise, try and tackle something which is real next time.

Peace.