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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
81 comments:
Hey Bob,
Shawn makes me laugh as well. I have e-mailed him numerous times and he has not responded yet! Shawn has nothing to stand on.
Shawn loves being deceptive!
I found a a interestiing website it is blacklds.org it's a very informative site.
Take care
Chad
therealmormontruth.blogspot.com
Give it up, Bob. You really need to get over your obsession with Shawn McCraney.
You are right that Mormonism is false. I'm glad you can admit that.
Btw, what are the "non-stop contradictions of the Bible"? Just curious as to why you say that.
Where can I watch this show? I would like to call in. I am in Southern Utah.
And now this, from the Sandran Tanner school of deceptive sentence redaction:
"You are right that Mormonism is false. I'm glad you can admit that."
Thanks to anonymous for proving why we should probably never believe anything he writes or supposedly quotes. Check sources.
Shawn constantly challenges that he never gets the facts wrong, and that he is just telling the truth, so no Mormon will confront him. Behold what happens when his fun world is challenged.
BTW, his show is on Tuesday evenings on channel 20 in Salt Lake at 8pm, but you can catch it on the web at HOTM.tv on their streaming video site. I am loathe to share that site because he distorts everything he talks about, and cuts off those who bring facts to the show. So good luck. Remember, he controls the phone and volume, so he will shut you down rather than risk being shown for the deceptive and very uninformed critic of Mormonism which he is.
Attaboy, Bob. I'm waiting for the show to become available so I can watch it. I finally got an email back from Shawn. See how it went down here: http://walkstar.blogspot.com/2009/11/mccraney-strikes-back.html
"obsession with Shawn McCraney"
As soon as he drops his obsession with Mormonism
"I'm glad you admit that."
Ooooh, good one.
You got on the air with Shawn McCraney? Now, that is a miracle! Yes, I agree that Shawn McCraney's Biblical theology is about as amusing as his grasps on American History. I was unaware that his wife was still a member. Sometimes, I truly feel sorry for that woman and pray that God gives her special favor in His kingdom. Personally, I feel the problem is that Shawn lacks the spiritual and intellectual maturity for that kind of a program. There are far better anti-Mormons out there that don't have a TV program, but could definitely challenge the teachings of Mormonism. Why don't they have a TV series? Because, unlike McCraney, they realize how counter-productive such an endeavor would be.
"Thanks to anonymous for proving why we should probably never believe anything he writes or supposedly quotes. Check sources."
Have checked the sources. They are legit. I've also noticed on your blog how you rationalize everything and do exactly what you accuse Shawn McCraney of doing - misguiding people about the truth.
Also, you didn't back up your Bible contradictions claim. You might want to expand on that.
Bob, it is sad that you believe in this ridiculous religion. For someone who appears to be intelligent, I am amazed that you believe in it. Anyone who buys into this blatant fraud is among the most foolish people in the world.
"Anyone who buys into this blatant fraud is among the most foolish people in the world."
Well, that settles it. Anonymous has spoken.
"You really need to get over your obsession with Shawn McCraney."
I agree with this. There are plenty of other people, groups and organizations out there that are anti-Mormonism and yet for some reason you focus on Shawn McCraney. 3 of your past 4 blogs have been focused on him and his show. You are obsessed with him - blogging about him, calling his show, going to his get-togethers like Burning Heart just so you can observe and then write about it later on. This is called stalking. It's weird. I'm not surprised that he has banned you from the show. You need to get over it. It's not healthy.
"I've also noticed on your blog how you rationalize everything and do exactly what you accuse Shawn McCraney of doing - misguiding people about the truth."
This is true. For example, Bob writes, "I seriously feel sorry for his wife, and that could explain why she has not left the LDS Church ..."
If you watched the show (especially the episode where his wife was on) or even knew anything about the McCraneys, you would know that she is not a faithful LDS. She is a born again Christian but she keeps her name on the church’s books because she has family members, like her mother, that are still faithful LDS and she attends church with them. She wouldn't be able to do that if she took her name off the books (which again reveals the cultic nature Mormonism and that it is really a cult, not a religion). The episode of HOTM where his family came on and explained his renewal into Christianity shows you clearly how they feel about it. They are much happier and they described how he has changed into a much better person now that he has left Mormonism. If you want to watch part of it, it is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya65Ocj9EAw
Shame on you, Bob, for misleading your reader and suggesting something (that is not true) without having the facts. It seems that you will say and do anything in order to defend Mormonism and discredit its opponents, who are trying to teach the truth about the church to the public.
"And now this, from the Sandran Tanner school of deceptive sentence redaction"
If you think Sandra Tanner is deceiving people, then there is something wrong with your brain. Wake up, Bob.
Wow, lots of personal attacks, so I suspect I hit a nerve this week.
Let's go in reverse order:
Sandra Tanner School of deceptive redaction is a reality. I carried out an email dialog with the woman about her deceptive editing of Lucy Mac Smith's account of JS relating the events of Moroni's visits to the Smith family. She finally admitted that she engaged in apparent "creative" text redaction because Lucy's account, which was an original, eyewitness source, did not agree with Sandra's understanding of those events. What do you call it when you edit history to agree with your bias? In the world of anti-Mormonism, it is labeled "scholarship".
Anonymous' assertion that Shawn's wife would not be allowed back to go to Church with her mother is pure, ignorant drivel. I think I recall Shawn saying that as well, though I believe two weeks ago he said "for her own reasons remains LDS".
The LDS official policy is to allow anyone to attend sacrament meeting or other meetings, so long as their presence or actions are not disruptive. And disruptive means interrupting the meetings to preach false doctrine or other disruptive actions. I have attended Church with excommunicated members who became polygamists as well as non-LDS who are antagonistic to the LDS faith. It is pure, false, untrue scripted poison of anonymous to assert Shawn's wife could not go to Church with her mother. Flat out false. So please, stop wasting the digital medium on your uninformed dream strawman assault on the Church. The CULT response you cite is Shawn's response to not allowing people on his show who don't agree with him. Church is about an hour long. HOTM is an hour long. LDS Sunday school has a lesson with questions, HOTM has a lesson with questions. Difference: LDS Church allows difficult sincere informed questions. HOTM does not. By your standard, which is the CULT?
As for stalking Shawn, please. The guy flies into Salt Lake every week, makes personal appearances and engages in endless challenges to the LDS to respond, and you say I have a problem for educating myself about his arguments and responding? Shawn's stalking the LDS Church doesn't strike you as odd?
Typical hypocrisy. First you accuse Mormons of being ignorant of the arguments or unwilling to listen or engage, and then because we don't swallow the tripe, we are accused of being obsessive stalkers. Truly pathetic argumentation.
But thanks for the comments, they do highlight authentic Christianity compared to the LDS-critics. They ignore Shawn's claim that he wants to let truth talk for itself (HOTM 11-17-09 12 minutes into the show)when he hangs up on me for pointing out inconvenient historical truth he does not want to discuss. Those are the disciples of Shawn and true koolaid drinkers.
"Shawn's stalking the LDS Church doesn't strike you as odd?"
This is kind of what I was thinking. There is a show dedicated to "exposing the Mormon Church" and Bob is called obsessive because he refutes the nonsense presented on it.
"This is called stalking."
So, the fact that I have read a good portion of Dr. Daniel C. Peterson's work, watched many of his online lectures/presentations, chat with him online, and then attended two lectures he gave here in Texas make me a stalker?
Perhaps Bob's refutations of McCraney have more to do with education and a bit of fun than some awful obsession.
When are you going to put aside your unhealthy obsession with Mormonism and Bob's blog aside, Anonymous?
"She wouldn't be able to do that if she took her name off the books"
As Bob pointed out, this is a complete load of crap.
Shame on you, Anonymous, for misleading the readers here and suggesting something (that is not true) without having the facts.
"If you think Sandra Tanner is deceiving people, then there is something wrong with your brain."
Why? Because The Anonymous One says so.
"What do you call it when you edit history to agree with your bias?"
I call that Mormonishess (using Shawn's phrase). The Mormon church is famous for doing that - white washing its history to fool unsuspecting investigators. Sandra Tanner's material is not suspect at all. She and her husband have done impeccable research and all you have to do is go take a look at it - an honest look. Any deception coming from the Tanners is purely of your imagination. Furthermore, you have to ask yourself, why would the Tanners (and Shawn McCraney and every other anti-Mormonism group) go to so much trouble just to tell the world things that are false about the Mormon church? That doesn't make sense. If all of these people are saying the same things, they are more than likely right and there's got to be something wrong with the church. Where there's smoke, there's fire. You notice there aren't any anti-baptist, or anti-methodist, or anti-presbyterian, etc., groups out there. Once again, Bob, you are proving your ignorance all over again.
"Wow, lots of personal attacks, so I suspect I hit a nerve this week."
No, you're just revealing to the world, again, how foolish you are.
"Anonymous' assertion that Shawn's wife would not be allowed back to go to Church with her mother is pure, ignorant drivel."
This statement is totally false. I know this from some of my family and friends' experience with the church.
"Difference: LDS Church allows difficult sincere informed questions. HOTM does not."
I don't know what kind of logic you are using to draw your conclusions, but you need to switch this statement to read, "Difference: HOTM allows difficult sincere informed questions. LDS Church does not." Shawn wants LDS people to call him with questions. He says it all the time and he gets LDS people calling in all the time with questions. What he doesn't want are people who stalk him (and anon is right about that - what you are doing is called stalking), and call his show, using any means necessary to defend the church and muddy the waters that he is trying to clear.
From my own personal experience from going to Sunday church with friends, the LDS church does not want people asking questions that contradict the doctrine at all. Also, a while ago, I was in the chapel at Temple Square, where the missionaries teach people about the church, and I asked a question about eternal marriage, "If eternal marriage is true, then why did Jesus say there is no marriage in heaven in the Gospel of Luke?" When I asked that question, I was escorted out. So you tell me which organization is a cult?
"As for stalking Shawn, please. The guy flies into Salt Lake every week, makes personal appearances and engages in endless challenges to the LDS to respond, and you say I have a problem for educating myself about his arguments and responding?"
Then how come you are not writing blogs about any other anti-Mormonism organization like Living Hope Ministries or Exmormon.org? How come you focus so much on Shawn? Answer: because you have an obsession with him and because of that, you are stalking him.
"Shawn's stalking the LDS Church doesn't strike you as odd?"
No, simply because he is far from the only person or group out there that does it. What strikes me as odd is that there are so many anti-Mormon groups. Why? What do they know about the church that they feel like they need to tell, or more likely, warn the world? What is it about the church that causes people to do this?
Furthermore, Shawn's not stalking the church. Do you see him calling them or writing them all the time or attending their functions as an outsider to observe? No. He has a TV show that teaches people the truth about the church, its doctrine and its history. What he is doing is the Lord's work - warning people about a false organization that lies to suck people into it and to use them.
"I think I recall Shawn saying that as well, though I believe two weeks ago he said "for her own reasons remains LDS"."
You obviously haven't watched the whole episode with his family there. You would be able to hear her own personal reasons directly from her. Again, you reveal your ignorance.
"Btw, what are the "non-stop contradictions of the Bible"?"
Bob, were you ever going to address this question? Now who is avoiding hard questions?
"Typical hypocrisy. First you accuse Mormons of being ignorant of the arguments or unwilling to listen or engage, and then because we don't swallow the tripe, we are accused of being obsessive stalkers. Truly pathetic argumentation."
This comment doesn't make sense. They are saying you are both. Contrary to what you may think, their arguments aren't pathetic. They are correct.
Bob,
If you want to watch the show where Shawn's wife talks about her experience and beliefs, it's here:
http://www.hotm.tv/shows/20080527.htm
"an honest look"
The same could be said of LDS scholarship. But really all you have to do is approach God with an honest heart and he will let you know Mormonism is true.
See how easy it is when I just make assertions.
"Where there's smoke, there's fire"
So I guess the fact that the Church has grown abundantly since the 1800s makes it true? Using your logic, I guess it is.
"anti-baptist"
So because there is anti-Mormonism, Mormonism must be false? That makes sense...
"how foolish you are"
A personal attack when declaring that you aren't attacking him personally. Oh, the irony.
"experience with the church"
The Church doesn't say you can't come to church if you aren't a member. If that is the "experience" of your family and friends, that is a lie. Either that or the bishopric in the ward really, really messed up.
"muddy the waters"
Oh, I see. If the individual doesn't swallow everything Shawn provides, it is considered "muddying the waters."
"the Lord's work"
I see. Shawn's TV show dedicated to "exposing the Mormon Church" is not obsession, it is the Lord's work. But when a member of the Mormon Church defends the Church from the TV show's host on a blog, it is obsession. Gotcha.
"no marriage"
Is not the appropriate place for debate. Besides that, you would be incorrect:
"Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. The use of the terms gamousin and gamizontai is important, for these terms refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married. The men...'marry,' while the women are 'given in marriage'...Thus Mark has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological [resurrection] state. This is surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state." (Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 2001)
"So, the fact that I have read a good portion of Dr. Daniel C. Peterson's work, watched many of his online lectures/presentations, chat with him online, and then attended two lectures he gave here in Texas make me a stalker?"
It would if he banned you from his lectures. You see the difference? Shawn has banned Bob from his show because he knows that Bob is not interested in the truth. All he wants to do is defend Mormonism at all costs even if it means misguiding people with false statements. Bob is stalking him because, regardless of being banned, he keeps writing Shawn, writing blog entries on him, calling the show, and going to the HOTM functions to observe, not participate. He says it in his own words:
"I was surprised tonight to call into Shawn McCraney's show, and actually get on air ... I just followed Shawn's model of they didn't ask if I was banned, so I didn't tell."
I agree with Anonymous. If a woman tells a man she doesn't want to have anything to do with him and yet he still follows her around, sends emails to her, and calls her, then he is technically stalking her. Bob has been banned from HOTM and yet he still shows up at the HOTM functions, sends Shawn emails, and calls in to the show. It's the exact same thing - stalking.
Bob, you really need to let go of this thing you have for Shawn McCraney. It's weird.
"Shame on you, Anonymous, for misleading the readers here and suggesting something (that is not true) without having the facts."
Anonymous was correct and wasn't misleading the readers. Bob was. Bob, with his statement about Mary McCraney, was doing exactly what he accuses Shawn and the Tanners of doing. Anonymous was right in pointing that out.
""no marriage"
Is not the appropriate place for debate. Besides that, you would be incorrect:
"Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. The use of the terms gamousin and gamizontai is important, for these terms refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married. The men...'marry,' while the women are 'given in marriage'...Thus Mark has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological [resurrection] state. This is surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state." (Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 2001)"
Walker, you need to read that statement in context. It is an example of how the church discourages people asking questions. Also, I am not wrong about Jesus words. In Luke, he says, "The children of this world marry." And then he goes on to say that there is no marriage in the resurrection. His words are very clear and trying to twist it the way you do here really doesn't work. Sorry, you are the one who is wrong, my friend.
"Notice what Jesus does not say."
Yeah, I know you LDS are famous for putting words into Jesus' mouth. Yeah, sure, if He did not say it (being married in heaven), it must be true. The argument is pathetic!
"All he wants to do is defend Mormonism at all costs even if it means misguiding people with false statements."
Well, that certainly is an objective statement.
"Bob is stalking him because, regardless of being banned, he keeps writing Shawn, writing blog entries on him, calling the show, and going to the HOTM functions to observe, not participate."
It has to do with the information presented by Shawn, not necessarily Shawn himself. There is a difference. I think the only thing Bob is obsessive about the Church. Shawn McCraney attacks the Church and is local. Therefore, Bob, being a local, engages McCraney (unfortunately, McCraney doesn't engage back). Nevermind that whether Bob is obsessive or not has nothing to do really with the information about Elijah Abel.
"If a woman tells a man she doesn't want to have anything to do with him and yet he still follows her around, sends emails to her, and calls her, then he is technically stalking her."
Too bad it isn't even the same situation. The man in this situation has a romantic/sexual attraction to the woman, who does not share the attraction. The woman doesn't want anything to do with the man and doesn't do anything to engage him, yet the man keeps coming back.
Shawn has a weekly show that is dedicated "proving the Mormon Church false." Bob is a member of the Church. He is defending his beliefs against a man who censors his defense.
Being rejected by a woman and being banned/censored by an individual who makes a living out of attacking your beliefs is very, very different. Your analogy is false.
"Anonymous was correct and wasn't misleading the readers"
If he attempts to say the Church doesn't allow non-members to come to church, then yes, he is being misleading.
Main Entry: 2stalk (Webster online)
3 : to pursue obsessively and to the point of harassment
(Oxford) 2 harass or persecute with unwanted and obsessive attention.
(Cambridge)a person who illegally follows and watches someone, especially a woman, over a period of time
As is typical of anti-Mormon critics, applying inappropriate and incendiary terms to engage in salacious name calling is, sadly, the norm. My studies and response to Shawn is not remotely defined by the meaning of the word "stalker" or "obsessive".
What this is, as is typical of anti-Mormons, is an inability to defend their behavior and arguments, so they attack the researcher, not the research. Their application of these terms would make ALL participants in the political process, medical research, editorial commentary, or sporting events definable as "obsessive" or "stalkers". After all, those supporters of athletic events are called "fans", which is derived from the word "fanatic".
So when Shawn comes to Utah, drives around making public appearances taunting LDS leadership to engage him, reports on LDS events such as General Conference in the most derisive terms, he is what? A reporter? Hardly.
Were I to "participate" at an event such as "Burning Heart", which is held in a public park and invites all to come whether believing or not in Shawn's teachings, I would have become exactly what I object to about Shawn. Shawn violates the Bible because he is not defending his faith from LDS attacks (Jude 3)(they don't even discuss him or his beliefs, nor organize a response), nor is he responding to questions about his faith (1 Peter 3:15). Instead, he personifies the condemnation of God for those who think "show boating" with lies and distortions somehow helps God's cause:
2 None of you are smarter than I am;
there's nothing you know that I don't.
3 But I prefer to argue my case with God All-Powerful--
4 you are merely useless doctors, who treat me with lies.
5 The wisest thing you can do is to keep quiet
6 and listen to my argument.
7 Are you telling lies for God
8 and not telling the whole truth when you argue his case?
9 If he took you to court, could you fool him, just as you fool others?
10 If you were secretly unfair, he would correct you,
11 and his glorious splendor would make you terrified.
12 Your wisdom and arguments are as delicate as dust. (Job 13:2-12)
Job perfectly describes Shawn's "defense" of God. God is just, so lying for him is the same as lying about him, and will bring conviction and damnation. This is part of the fallacy of the Evangelical argument of "once saved, always saved by faith and not actions". One cannot argue they live in the Spirit and not do the commandments of God (1 John 2:4). They are liars. And they are deluded liars in thinking they can lie or put on a show for God, and be forgiven. They will not be. Failure to repent, even after being "saved", brings damnation (2 Cor 7:10).
Walker's point is accurate. I called in, was honest in both identifying myself and identifying the nature of my question. Shawn got mad and hung up because he had not done his homework, was repeating an erroneous statement by Harold B. Lee, and flat out lies when he said two weeks earlier that he wants to provide Truth and let the Truth speak for itself.
Except when it rebukes his own ignorance.
Thanks for writing.
"Walker, you need to read that statement in context."
Well, let us look at it:
"...I was in the chapel at Temple Square..."
And I said, "Is not the appropriate place for debate."
I don't see how I took it out of context or didn't read it in context.
"And then he goes on to say that there is no marriage in the resurrection."
Actually, that is not what He says:
"The children of this world MARRY, and are GIVEN IN MARRIAGE: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither MARRY, nor are GIVEN IN MARRIAGE." (Luke 20:34-35)
Says "marry" and "given in marriage" in both Matthew and Mark as well.
Allow me to repost the significant part of this:
"The use of the terms gamousin and gamizontai is important, for these terms refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married...Thus Mark has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological [resurrection] state. This is surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state." (Witherington)
"Sorry, you are the one who is wrong, my friend."
You didn't refute anything. You misquoted Jesus to try to make your point.
"I know you LDS are famous for putting words into Jesus' mouth."
1. That is actually what Anonymous did by saying Jesus said there was no marriage. He actually said that no one would "marry" or be "given in marriage." There is a difference between the act and the institution.
2. Those weren't my words. Those were Dr. Witherington's, who is the Amos Professor of New Testament for Doctoral Studies at Asbury Theological Seminary.
Wow, anonymous, you really hit a nerve. Haha. Bob is stalking Shawn - good one! It's true though regardless of how he tries to justify it.
"Jesus, then, would seem to be arguing against a specific view held by the Sadducees about the continuity between this life and the life to come, a view involving the ongoing practice of levirate marriage. In the eschatological state we have resurrected beings who are no longer able to die. Levirate marriage existed precisely because of the reality of death. When death ceases to happen, the rationale for levirate marriage falls to the ground as well. When Jesus says…that people will be like the angels in heaven in the life to come, he does not mean they will live a sexless identity (early Jews did not think angels were sexless in any case; cf. Gen. 6:1–4!), but rather that they will be like angels in that they are unable to die. Thus the question of the Sadducees is inappropriate to the conditions of the eschatological state…In Mark 10 Jesus grounded normal marriage in the creation order, not in the order of the fall, which is the case with levirate marriage (instituted because of death and childlessness and the need to preserve the family name and line)." (Ibid.)
"If he attempts to say the Church doesn't allow non-members to come to church, then yes, he is being misleading."
You didn't read her response to that. She just told you from her experience that she has seen that happen. And your response was:
"The Church doesn't say you can't come to church if you aren't a member. If that is the "experience" of your family and friends, that is a lie. Either that or the bishopric in the ward really, really messed up."
Here basically you are calling her a liar or saying that the bishopric messed up. She's not lying. I can attest to that. And if you claim that the bishopric messed up, then there must be a lot of mess ups in the various wards of the LDS church.
It's interesting how you and Bob keep calling people liars. Those are very strong words but empty words coming from two people who are faithful to a church that is famous for lying about it's history and doctrine ( example, Hinckley on Larry King: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lsBFlcjE-8&feature=related ) and also for lying for the Lord ( example: Mountain Meadows Massacre ).
Not only that, you cherry pick biblical scriptures to fit your theology without considering it in context. For example, 2 Cor 7:10 says:
"For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death."
If you were born again you would understand this and the scriptures before and after it. But you don't because you are woefully ignorant of the true meaning of the Bible passages. It is describing the difference between godly sorrow and worldly sorrow. Godly sorrow is the process of sanctification. You can go study it in true Christian doctrine. Here is a good book where you can study it:
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Doctrine-Wayne-Grudem/dp/0310222338/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259946939&sr=8-6
"Main Entry: 2stalk (Webster online)
3 : to pursue obsessively and to the point of harassment
(Oxford) 2 harass or persecute with unwanted and obsessive attention."
Yup, that is exactly what Bob is doing to Shawn. It is weird.
I almost forgot. Witherington mentions the two Greek words for "marry" and "given in marriage" and how they speak of the act of marrying.
You'll notice that the Greek 'gamesas' (married, married one) is not used. Christ does not state that there will be no "married ones" in the resurrection, only that no one will "marry" or be "given in marriage."
So, you are incorrect to assert that Christ states there will be no marriage in heaven.
"So, you are incorrect to assert that Christ states there will be no marriage in heaven."
No, he was right. Jesus words in the Bible are very clear and you can write whatever you want on it but you are still wrong. He says:
"The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."
Again:
"The children of this world marry"
Meaning that marriage is an earthly institution and when we pass into the resurrection, we leave that behind. Your explanation is just another example of the LDS putting meaning into the Bible text that is not there.
"Well, let us look at it:
"...I was in the chapel at Temple Square..."
And I said, "Is not the appropriate place for debate."
I don't see how I took it out of context or didn't read it in context."
The point was that Anonymous wasn't talking about debating. He/she was talking about being able to ask questions and whether or not the LDS allowed that or shunned it. Being in the chapel where the missionaries are teaching people about Mormonism is definitely an appropriate place to ask questions about the faith, especially when there is something in the LDS scriptures that doesn't make sense. So basically you are saying that the investigators there aren't supposed to ask them questions because it's not appropriate. That's wrong. You need to think a little, Walker, before responding in this comment stream. You are too defensive. You seem to just say whatever comes to mind before thinking about it or even trying to understand what someone is telling you.
"And if you claim that the bishopric messed up, then there must be a lot of mess ups in the various wards of the LDS church"
Didn't know that being perfect was a requirement in life, interesting....
I do enjoy the personal attacks that the "Christians" have against Bob and Walker. I don't know how many "anonymous'" have come and gone, but they all revert to the same tactics, "Bob is being misleading". Until any better proof is shown than, "Bob is (this)" or, "Bob does (that)", I can't see why anyone would do anything but laugh when they read your comments. Topics are up for debate, and every blog, there's always a personal attack, and it starts off with, "Bob said (this), and he's misleading or misinterpreting the truth" without any clear, well supported statements to back it up. Honestly, if you can't find anything better to say than to attack one's persona, than why even waste your time? If you're here to engage in an intelligent debate and prove facts, than do it, but at least be more "Christian" and not attack someone. And don't worry, I know what you're going to say, "You call Bob stalking Shawn 'Christian'?" I don't see how it's any different than each one of you waiting for a new blog from Bob just so you can attack him. I have heard that people that stalk usual wait in the bush or behind something, waiting for a moment where than can pounce on their victim. So let's leave that all behind and engage in a better debate than, "yeah, well my dad can beat up your dad" or, "I know you are but what am I?"
One of the main defining characteristics of the anti-Mormon mentality is a complete lack of shame in their assertions:
Anonymous said...
"Main Entry: 2stalk (Webster online)
3 : to pursue obsessively and to the point of harassment
(Oxford) 2 harass or persecute with unwanted and obsessive attention."
Yup, that is exactly what Bob is doing to Shawn. It is weird.
I have personally seen or met Shawn on EXACTLY 8 occasions. One of those was he showed up to visit a friend in the hospital who was on the same floor as my daughter. One was I went to a public speaking event, and afterward Shawn flagged me down. Once at the studio open house. Twice at his burning heart events, and 3 times after his show at Denney's at his Pastor in the Pub event. This is over the course of 3 years. I have called into the show maybe 5 times, and got on the air 3 times. I have blogged about Shawn 20 times since Nov 2006, meaning roughly 7 times per year, or once every 8 shows or so. I have certainly NOT seen most of his shows.
Shawn is local, claims to be making an impact on the LDS faith, and both attacks me personally on the air as well as my faith. The fact is that facts don't matter to folks like Shawn or anonymous. It is all about distortion, and avoiding engaging in defense of their position. I find it quite funny that the best response Anonymous can come up with to Shawn's stupidity about Elijah Abel is to accuse me of being a "Shawn Stalker".
Good one. Let's pray for your client's sake that you aren't a lawyer.
"She just told you from her experience that she has seen that happen."
They kicked them out of the church? They couldn't enter the church? Did they have security there or something?
Such a story stretches plausibility.
"Here basically you are calling her a liar or saying that the bishopric messed up"
I'm not basically doing that. I am doing that. Anonymous is either a liar or the bishopric messed up completely. The Church's policy is not to kick out non-members.
"She's not lying. I can attest to that."
So, Anonymous attests that the other Anonymous is not lying. That sure is convincing.
"And if you claim that the bishopric messed up, then there must be a lot of mess ups in the various wards of the LDS church."
If they are physically removing you from the building with no good reason, then yes, that would be a mess-up and should be addressed. I heavily doubt that is the case.
"Those are very strong words but empty words coming from two people who are faithful to a church that is famous for lying about it's history and doctrine"
You said something about "empty words"...
And simply stating that Gordon B. Hinckley was lying because the commentator who made the video says he was is rather lame. As for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, plenty has been written on it by members of the Church.
"Not only that, you cherry pick biblical scriptures to fit your theology without considering it in context."
Yet, you don't even show how this is. You simply say, "If you were born again you would understand this and the scriptures before and after it. But you don't because you are woefully ignorant of the true meaning of the Bible passages." What an argument.
"The point was that Anonymous wasn't talking about debating."
I doubt Anonymous was asking a sincere question based on his/her display on this blog.
"appropriate place to ask questions about the faith, especially when there is something in the LDS scriptures that doesn't make sense"
Notice I said "debate," not "ask questions."
"So basically you are saying that the investigators there aren't supposed to ask them questions because it's not appropriate. That's wrong."
Good thing I didn't say that. I said it isn't the place for a debate.
"You need to think a little, Walker, before responding in this comment stream."
As do you, considering you made up a straw man. I have no reason to believe Anonymous was sincere in their question based on his/her responses on this blog, especially since investigators ask questions all the time at church and with the missionaries.
"You are too defensive."
Does that make you too offensive?
"You seem to just say whatever comes to mind before thinking about it or even trying to understand what someone is telling you."
Utter nonsense.
I am expected to take the word of anonymous posters that the LDS wards in their areas have treated them so badly, kicked them out for no reason, and shot down their sincere questions even though the attitude and approach they display on this blog testifies against any sincerity they might have when it comes to learning about the Church.
Sorry. I don't find any reason to just take your word for it, Oh Anonymous One.
"Meaning that marriage is an earthly institution and when we pass into the resurrection, we leave that behind."
Nice eisegesis there. Too bad the text doesn't say that. All the text says is that one will not "marry" or be "given in marriage." It speaks nothing of those already married or "married ones."
"Your explanation is just another example of the LDS putting meaning into the Bible text that is not there."
It wasn't my explanation, it was one of the leading Evangelical scholars' explanation. Just repeating yourself doesn't make your case. The language is important, as Dr. Witherington points out.
As for Wayne Grudem, I'm aware of his theological standings. I've read chapters 21 & 24 in that book. If you want to discuss faith, works, and grace (again), so be it.
"Good one. Let's pray for your client's sake that you aren't a lawyer."
Bob, that one's classic!
"I do enjoy the personal attacks that the "Christians" have against Bob and Walker. I don't know how many "anonymous'" have come and gone, but they all revert to the same tactics,"
You mean the sort of tactics that Bob and Walker revert to? You know you are talking about them right? All you have to do is read their blogs and comments.
"And simply stating that Gordon B. Hinckley was lying because the commentator who made the video says he was is rather lame."
Walker, if you watch the video and then read D&C 132, you will see that Hinckley is clearly lying.
""Bob said (this), and he's misleading or misinterpreting the truth" without any clear, well supported statements to back it up."
You obviously don't know how to read. Bob totally misled the reader about Mary McCraney. Go back and read the comment stream.
""Bob is stalking him because, regardless of being banned, he keeps writing Shawn, writing blog entries on him, calling the show, and going to the HOTM functions to observe, not participate."
It has to do with the information presented by Shawn, not necessarily Shawn himself. There is a difference."
Is that right? Then how come his blog doesn't seem to address any of the other anti-mormon people and groups? How come we don't see any blogs on them? Answer: because Bob is obsessed with Shawn and given that Shawn has banned him from the show and that Bob still continues with his nonsense, he is therefore stalking Shawn. It's not hard to understand. Bob just doesn't want to admit that he's got this weird thing for Shawn.
"The fact is that facts don't matter to folks like Shawn or anonymous. It is all about distortion, and avoiding engaging in defense of their position."
That's the pot calling the kettle black! Bob, you do realize that you are describing yourself here right?
""appropriate place to ask questions about the faith, especially when there is something in the LDS scriptures that doesn't make sense"
Notice I said "debate," not "ask questions.""
Yeah, but you got it wrong Walker. Bob and I were talking about being able to ask questions, not about debating. Go back and read it again.
"As for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, plenty has been written on it by members of the Church."
Yes and I have read them and that is exactly why I said that the church is famous for "lying for the Lord." It's in church history everywhere.
"It wasn't my explanation, it was one of the leading Evangelical scholars' explanation. Just repeating yourself doesn't make your case. The language is important, as Dr. Witherington points out."
Um, no Walker. That was your explanation. You took some of his words and twisted them to mean what you want. Typical of the LDS.
"I have no reason to believe Anonymous was sincere in their question based on his/her responses on this blog, especially since investigators ask questions all the time at church and with the missionaries."
Maybe she was at the time. How do you know? From what she wrote here, her question was an honest question. In any case, the fact that she was escorted out proves that the church does not want people asking questions. Furthermore, if the missionaries couldn't answer her question, then they shouldn't be missionaries.
"One of the main defining characteristics of the anti-Mormon mentality is a complete lack of shame in their assertions:"
Bob, you really need to admit that you have a problem and let it go. This thing you have for McCraney is not normal.
"Didn't know that being perfect was a requirement in life,"
Well, according to LDS doctrine and teachings, it's a requirement for salvation. Or are you not LDS?
"As is typical of anti-Mormon critics, applying inappropriate and incendiary terms to engage in salacious name calling is, sadly, the norm ... What this is, as is typical of anti-Mormons, is an inability to defend their behavior and arguments, so they attack the researcher ..."
Hmmm, this is interesting Bob. Let's see ... you might want to read these lines from your most recent blog:
"Anyway, Shawn proved once again how shallow and judgmental he is about issues."
"Anyway, the Biblically based illiterate stated that Israel was ..."
So who is doing the name calling and attacking? Your description of other people say more about you than they do about the people to whom they are referring.
Anonymous said these two statements are name callig:
"Anyway, Shawn proved once again how shallow and judgmental he is about issues."
"Anyway, the Biblically based illiterate stated that Israel was ..."
I am sorry, but they are not name calling, they are facts, though the second one is only a slight exaggeration, which makes it more of a parody about something real than a fact, per se.
Shawn is shallow and judgmental about issues relating to the LDS Church. I vividly recall him agreeing with people who call in saying outrageous, stupid things, and him saying "yeah, that's right, good call". Example, General Authorities kids get sent to "better" missions. Really? Most missionaries will tell you they went to the best mission in the world, regardless of its location. There is no special placement for GA's kids. I could literally list hundreds of such statements and comments. No exaggeration there. Hundreds. He told the story of how three men escaped from the Fancher party camp one night to go run for help, and were encounter by a group of white men, who shot one then tracked down the other two and killed them. Watch the video from the show, and he tells how horrific these Mormon men were hunting them down. Trouble was, only two men actually slipped away from the Fancher party that night, one was shot, but the other escaped back to the wagon train and told the Party there were armed white men out there, not just Indians. Shawn missed the whole implication of that event. That forced Haight in Cedar City to give the order to wipe out the adults, as they now knew the Mormons were involved. This despite the fact that several bishops had confronted Stake President Haight and demanded he wait for directions from Salt Lake, which he promised he would. Shawn failed to report all of this. He also fails to discern that IF, as history records, Haight sent away for directions from Brigham Young, THEN there obviously were NOT standing orders to kill these folks. Moreover, the letter to Haight from Brigham Young telling them to allow the Fancher Party to pass unharmed, of which we have the pressed copy, therefore shows Brigham Young did not thirst for their blood. Shawn misjudged all of this. He also omitted the fact that Haight cried like a baby and declared his soul was lost when he read the letter from Young, and Young cried as well when he learned of the massacre. Not exactly the response of a bloodthirsty Young, or someone with standing orders on Haights part, as Shawn said he was given the week previously by George A. Smith. He literally misjudged it all because he was only reading Anti-Mormon material.
(continued below)
(Continued)
As for Biblically illiterate, frankly he practically is. He quoted from Jeremiah to prove how wrong Pres. Monson was for expressing delight at celebrating his birthday. The passages in Jeremiah, however, are all negative because Jeremiah wishes he were dead because of the wickedness of the people. EVERY Bible commentary brings this fact out. I believe suicidal or depression caused wishes are neither to be taken as good role models to follow, and demand understanding of context. See Jeremiah 20:14-18. The fact is, by Jeremiah commanding the day of his birth not be a blessed day because of the sorrow and labor of his life, he is indicating that the NORMAL course of Jewish life was in fact to celebrate the date of ones birth. We see the indication of this with Herod celebrating his birthday, where he also wound up ordering the death of John the Baptist. We also see this indirectly in the Christian celebration of Easter, the ultimate "Birthday". But still, the verses used by Shawn are not seen as an attack on birthdays by any of the leading Bible commentaries (see http://bible.cc/jeremiah/20-14.htm ).
Moreover, it is factually true that Shawn's explanation of Hebrews not being allowed to own Hebrew slaves is...IGNORANT. The definition of 'ignorant' is someone uneducated about something. He is demonstrably so, not just in this case, but in most of his Biblical exegesis. When Walker called in to discuss the archaeological evidence of Israel being henotheistic, and the Biblical basis for that assertion, Shawn was completely clueless.
I didn't say Shawn looks ugly or his hair is too curly, which would be "name calling" and purely subjective. I am throwing it down that he makes so many errors that anyone doing even modest fact checking will find a horrible distortion of the truth by him on virtually every topic he discusses. And I believe the confirmatory evidence of this is the fact that he bans ALL "self-appointed" apologists, i.e., those folks who have studied the arguments enough to mount a cogent defense of the LDS beliefs.
As for not discussing other anti-Mormons, again, please. Rob Sivulka is mentioned heavily. Aaron Shaf. Bill McKeever. Aaron Shaf's buddy that I debated over Calvinism. And don't forget this blog basically started with my analysis, and the subsequent threat of a lawsuit by Josephlied.com, after I showed to a high degree of probability that he was engaging in plagiarism from the Tanner's. He backed off of the threatened lawsuit when I showed him the statistical probability was literally astronomically small that he did not do so, and that any statistician would be able to replicate the results and confirm my analysis.
In any event, obviously I write about the things I interact with. Shawn broadcasts on my television every week. So every week there is new fodder for a column. Get over it.
If he were teaching a REAL course on LDS doctrine or history, even if controversial, I probably would ignore him if he got most of the details right. His lack of partiality, which I believe is based on his illiterate (as in not very broad and lacking in depth) exposition of the Bible and his poor judgment which causes him to seemingly uncritically swallow anti-Mormon material are what qualify him for regular attention.
Peace.
"You know you are talking about them right?"
Well, I'm rubber and you are glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you. Are we done with the childish comebacks?
"if you watch the video and then read D&C 132, you will see that Hinckley is clearly lying."
Since I've done both and don't see that he is "clearly lying," I don't see why I should take this at face value.
"Then how come his blog doesn't seem to address any of the other anti-mormon people and groups?"
Why does it have to be groups? Why can't it just be anti-Mormon arguments? That is what the blog mainly addresses.
"Bob and I were talking about being able to ask questions, not about debating."
And I explained exactly why I used the word "debate." Maybe you should reread.
"Yes and I have read them and that is exactly why I said that the church is famous for "lying for the Lord."
Interesting, since Juanita Brooks' (who is LDS) work was considered the leading authority on the subject for years and years. Hopefully you read that.
"You took some of his words and twisted them to mean what you want."
I took the Evangelical's words and twisted them? I gave the entire context of what he said. To accuse me otherwise is a lie and a half. I'll repost it for you.
"How do you know?"
I don't, but based on the attitude displayed here, I have no reason to believe otherwise. It is a matter of whether or not I trust Anonymous and her/his story. I don't and haven't been given a reason to.
But if we are all for personal experiences, I've had a great experience with the LDS Church. Even better, I've had a personal witness from the Holy Ghost that the Church is true.
Does that count for you?
For Anonymous once more:
"Jesus stresses that in the age to come people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Notice what Jesus does not say. He does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. The use of the terms “γαμουσιν” (gamousin) and “γαμιζονται” (gamizontai) is important, for these terms refer to the gender-specific roles played in early Jewish society by the man and the woman in the process of getting married. The men, being the initiators of the process in such a strongly patriarchal culture, “marry,” while the women are “given in marriage” by their father or another older family member. Thus Mark has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological [resurrection] state. This is surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state. Jesus, then, would seem to be arguing against a specific view held by the Sadducees about the continuity between this life and the life to come, a view involving the ongoing practice of levirate marriage. In the eschatological state we have resurrected beings who are no longer able to die. Levirate marriage existed precisely because of the reality of death. When death ceases to happen, the rationale for levirate marriage falls to the ground as well. When Jesus says…that people will be like the angels in heaven in the life to come, he does not mean they will live a sexless identity (early Jews did not think angels were sexless in any case; cf. Gen. 6:1–4!), but rather that they will be like angels in that they are unable to die. Thus the question of the Sadducees is inappropriate to the conditions of the eschatological state…In Mark 10 Jesus grounded normal marriage in the creation order, not in the order of the fall, which is the case with levirate marriage (instituted because of death and childlessness and the need to preserve the family name and line). Thus Jesus is intending to deny about the eschatological state 'that there will be any natural relation out of which the difficulty of the Sadducees could arise.'" (Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 2001)
Am I still twisting his words?
Another non-LDS uses this very same quote in this article of the Methodist Examiner: http://www.examiner.com/x-8276-Methodist-Examiner~y2009m6d30-Will-we-be-married-in-Heaven
To use Christ's words to attack the idea of eternal marriage is extremely flawed.
"I am sorry, but they are not name calling, they are facts, though the second one is only a slight exaggeration, which makes it more of a parody about something real than a fact, per se."
So, in other words, if you feel justified in it (hence you feel it is a fact), then it is not name calling. So the comment posters here, who called you ignorant and misleading because of your comment on Mary McCraney and those who called you a stalker because of what you do to Shawn, are also justified in it. Therefore, what they did, according to you, must not be name calling either. So it's not name calling because according to them, the names they pinned to you are facts. I don't think so. It doesn't matter how you swing it, Bob, it's still name calling and you are just as guilty of it as the people who post on your blog.
"The men...'marry,' while the women are 'given in marriage'...Thus Mark has Jesus saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the eschatological [resurrection] state. This is surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state."
Walker, the reason this argument doesn't work is because Jesus was answering the Sadducees who asked him about a woman who married seven brothers and they wanted to know who she would be married to in the resurrection. Therefore, they were asking if the marriages that were performed in this world (not marriages performed in the resurrection) would hold in the resurrection and he replied:
"The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."
You see, it is very simple. You can twist it any way you want but Jesus' words are very clear and simple. So, I'm sorry but the LDS are wrong about marriage in the resurrection.
"I do enjoy the personal attacks that the "Christians" have against Bob and Walker. I don't know how many "anonymous'" have come and gone, but they all revert to the same tactics,"
You mean the sort of tactics that Bob and Walker revert to? You know you are talking about them right? All you have to do is read their blogs and comments."
Good deflection
""Bob said (this), and he's misleading or misinterpreting the truth" without any clear, well supported statements to back it up."
You obviously don't know how to read. Bob totally misled the reader about Mary McCraney. Go back and read the comment stream."
Good deflection, since I wasn't being specific, I was being very general in what everyone says. Don't believe me, go back and check the comments for every blog Bob has written, I'm sure you'll find someone attacking him personally rather than discussing the topic at hand, but good deflection again.
"It wasn't my explanation, it was one of the leading Evangelical scholars' explanation. Just repeating yourself doesn't make your case. The language is important, as Dr. Witherington points out."
Um, no Walker. That was your explanation. You took some of his words and twisted them to mean what you want. Typical of the LDS."
Typical deflection by a "Christian"
"One of the main defining characteristics of the anti-Mormon mentality is a complete lack of shame in their assertions:"
Bob, you really need to admit that you have a problem and let it go. This thing you have for McCraney is not normal."
Another great deflection by anonymous
"Didn't know that being perfect was a requirement in life,"
Well, according to LDS doctrine and teachings, it's a requirement for salvation. Or are you not LDS?"
It is also a well known LDS fact that it is impossible for any one but our Lord and Saviour to be perfect.
I understand what you mean, Bob, about Shawn either exaggerating, elaborating or not giving the whole story on an issue. For the most part, I think the material he presents is correct, but sometimes he is grossly bias. For example, a caller mentioned Hugh Nibley's daughter's book that she wrote about her father falsifying his research and being a child molester. Shawn just agreed with him as if it was a fact. I never knew about that so I looked into it. If you research the facts about Hugh Nibley's daughter, you see that her story, and the book she wrote, has little credibility and you see also that her sources are phony. So yeah, you are right about Shawn doing that on occasion. I think where we would disagree is that you would say that he does this all the time, where I wouldn't necessarily make that statement. It's interesting about Nibley's family. I didn't know they had the issues that they do though. Regardless, people should thoroughly check the facts, anyone's facts who is making a claim for or against a particular issue.
Some anonymous said:
"So, in other words, if you feel justified in it (hence you feel it is a fact), then it is not name calling."
Sorry, I didn't mean to talk over your head on this. If I see a guy pull out a pistol and shoot someone, he is demonstrably a killer. It would not be name calling in court to so label him.
If someone yells "fire" in a theater, they are typically charged with disorderly conduct if it was a fake warning. Describing that person as a liar is not name calling, it would be a fact.
If a person said they were a doctor, but didn't know anything about modern medical techniques or practice, he would in the most generous sense be ignorant and illiterate, and such designations would not be in any sense a pejorative case of name calling.
So I listed specific examples which were not just passing comments by Shawn, but actually in some cases were substantial portions of his prepared remarks. His last week's show was about racism, and he specifically spoke on the subject of Elijah Abel having been stripped of his priesthood. He was wrong, and there is no excuse that he was reading a statement by Harold B. Lee. In my question to him, he DIDN'T KNOW what the actual history on the subject was.
I am not saying Shawn should be a trained historian or a Greek language professor. But he claims to be an expert on Mormonism. He is not. In fact, his knowledge, whenever he is challenged, turns out to be shallow, and is based on extremely limited sources and typically anti-LDS. That makes him both shallow and judgmental in LDS matters.
I cite a very specific example from his prepared remarks about Jeremiah's comments about his own birthday. I have written at length about his mistreatment of 1 Cor 15:29. His analysis of John 1:1, or response to Walker's comments about henotheistic beliefs by Israel all display a complete lack of understanding or exposure to scholarly literature.
That makes him Biblically illiterate.
Those are not at a level of name calling, like "Shawn is ugly". I am not saying Shawn is "stupid" about anything. I think he is a calculating, false teacher. I think he has demonstrated he does not want to be bothered by facts, especially on his show. I can't tell you the number of times folks say things to me like "Shawn should have you on his show to really tear you apart and expose your deceptiveness." As he has said repeatedly, he is not going to let someone who knows more about LDS history and doctrine on his show than himself.
So while Shawn accuses me of being deceptive on his show without any opportunity to respond, I will let Shawn post on my blog any time he wants.
The best antiseptic for error is light. If Shawn really was correct about Mormonism, he would have the best of LDS scholars and apologists on his show every week to tear them up with the "spirit of truth" he claims he possesses since his Born Again experience. The reality of his position speaks volumes about his confidence in his position.
I appreciate Anonymous' comment about the Nibley family as an example of Shawn at times being misleading. While I object to that kind of behavior, I actually think the thing that shows his intentions is illuminated from his prepared remarks. He does get some facts correct, even if he portrays them in incendiary ways for the sake of the show.
But he literally gets MAJOR things wrong every week, and it is always in a way to damage the integrity of the LDS Church or its members.
His discussion of the First Vision in Season 1 listed multiple reasons why it could not have happened. Literally almost every "fact" he cited for evidence he misrepresented. He had the Smith family in the wrong home. He misrepresents the growth of the churches in the area. He wrongly states there were no documented revivals in the Palmyra area in 1819-1820. He says there were no contemporaries who seemed to know about the First Vision. He actually erroneously stated that JS did not write it down until 1838. He did bring up the differences between the accounts, which I would expect him to do. But so many facts are wrong, well, hard to consider this just a bad week.
Two weeks ago he listed a couple of dozen similarities between Mormons and Muslims. Yet most of the similarities also apply to traditional Christianity.
Of course I have pointed out how he shows no awareness of actual LDS history concerning blacks.
Shawn has stated folks like me have no interest in the truth, just defending our faith. I know most of the foremost defenders of the LDS faith, and that is just not true. Moreover, I have rarely seen any LDS person be rude or verbally abusive on his show, yet he raised his voice and yelled at me on air, then, for the second time in the show, hung up on me as he had another caller earlier.
I know he puts on a show. But to just make this totally stark, imagine if a porn star said something like "I believe in chastity, I just like to put on a good show." I am not sure there is a provision for preaching the Gospel allowing one to ignore 1 Pet 3:15.
BTW, I have written a few times about the fact that Jesus does not attack those outside his faith. Jews were in his faith. Pharisees, Sadducees and lawyers were all part of the faith of Abraham. He never goes after the Romans or Greeks. Neither does Peter or Paul. He doesn't call the Samarians a bunch of losers. In fact, he shows compassion on the Gentile woman who comes to him begging for mercy. Shawn cites Jesus chiding the religious establishment as if they were not of Jesus' religion. Did he not notice Jesus attends synagogue? That he teaches at the temple, in the believer's section? Anyway, again Shawn misses the point. And even if Jesus, did, (which I don't think he does)Paul, James, and Peter don't. When did Shawn get elevated to the level of Messiah?
Thanks for writing.
Bob
"the Sadducees who asked him about a woman who married seven brothers and they wanted to know who she would be married to in the resurrection."
Dr. Witherington explains this quite well. Allow me to repost once again:
"Jesus, then, would seem to be arguing against a specific view held by the Sadducees about the continuity between this life and the life to come, a view involving the ongoing practice of levirate marriage. In the eschatological state we have resurrected beings who are no longer able to die. Levirate marriage existed precisely because of the reality of death. When death ceases to happen, the rationale for levirate marriage falls to the ground as well."
I hate repeating myself. The only time I do is when one doesn't fully listen or read what I've given. Don't make me do it again.
"You can twist it any way you want"
You mean Dr. Witherington can "twist" them anyway they want, since it was his argument. I just agree with it.
Not to mention that the example of the Sadducees is very similar to the Book of Tobit. If this is the example they were using, then Christ was right that they didn't understand the scriptures.
Walker,
Where is your website/blog? I thought I had subscribed, but I don't see it in my choices.
For what it is worth, I think Walker's stuff is worth the read, and encourage anyone who enjoys his insights here to visit his blog.
Thanks,
Bob
Bob,
Thanks for the shout out. My blog is walkstar.blogspot.com.
I mainly focus on gospel subjects, though I will stray into other passions (movies, politics, etc.).
In other words, if you don't like my politics, taste in movies, or whatever, just skip it and go straight to the gospel stuff.
Haha, this back and forth is almost hillarious.
Walker and Bob are pwning this Anonmyous name-caller.
XD
Bob,
I find it odd that Shawn has no problem pointing to Harold B. Lee as an infallible source of historical information in this regard, but I'm sure dismisses everything else he (or any other General Authority) says as a lie.
What a biased and incredibly lazy approach to the issue.
"I hate repeating myself. The only time I do is when one doesn't fully listen or read what I've given. Don't make me do it again."
It's amazing to me that the LDS will spin in any direction to prove their views. Jesus' words on marriage in heaven in Luke are clear as day. Walker, and his "sources", are wrong on this issue.
And, Walker, please, you don't have to repeat yourself since your arguments do not make sense and are not working anyway.
"Walker, and his "sources", are wrong on this issue."
Why is "sources" put in such a fashion? How is Dr. Witherington some kind of pseudo-source? Because he disagrees with you? Could you be anymore childish?
"And, Walker, please, you don't have to repeat yourself since your arguments do not make sense and are not working anyway."
Once again, the argument is put forth by Dr. Witherington. I just happen to agree with it.
"Jesus' words on marriage in heaven in Luke are clear as day"
I think deserves to be categorized as an "argument." And yes, they are clear: no one will marry or be given in marriage. Married ones are nowhere to be found in the text.
Call it twisting all you want. That is what the text actually says. I have confirmed my views with a scholarly source. And after patting yourself on the back, you have managed to burp up "nu uh." Good job.
Don't be mad that James E. Talmage got it right close to a century ago:
"The Lord's meaning is clear, that in the resurrected state there can be no question among the seven brothers as to whose wife for eternity the woman would be, since all except for the first has married her...primarily for the purpose of perpetuating in mortality the name and family of the brother who first died...In the resurrection there will be no marrying nor giving in marriage; for all questions of marital status must be settled before that time, under the authority of the Holy Priesthood, which holds the power to seal marriage for both time and eternity." (Jesus the Christ, 1915)
Post a Comment