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?
Showing posts with label Trinity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trinity. Show all posts
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
Was there a First Vision?
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Mormons ARE Christians
"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.
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.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Lessons Learned OUTSIDE General Conference
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.
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.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Shawn McCraney Burning Heart 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Shawn McCraney and False Teachings On Creation
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)