Theology Trumps Salvation?

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

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

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

What would you say?

Was there a First Vision?

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.

Final Shawn McCraney Post (for a while)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trying to Call Hateful Acts Love

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lies, Darn Lies and Shawn McCraney

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

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

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

Shawn McCraney is a liar.

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

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

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

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

"What a maroon."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making Shawn not just mistaken, but ignorant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is The Heart Really That Desparately Wicked?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The footnote in the Netbible says of Luke 24:32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that is pure bunk.

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

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

I have never written anything this harsh about Shawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus in Our Midst

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

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

Truly, we live "Come unto Christ."

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

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

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

Leaders Fighting Amongst Themselves

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

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

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

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

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

Peter and Paul.

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

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

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

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

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

Lessons Learned OUTSIDE General Conference

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.

Youtube Videos Added For Review

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

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.

Is UTLM Becoming MRM?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me know what you think.

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

Shawn McCraney and False Teachings On Creation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review of "A Struggle to Peace"

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

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

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

Some other observations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16 Confess [your] faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.James 5:16

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

A caller asked if her LDS family were going to hell for not having left the LDS Church, even though they talk of Jesus and do so many good things with such a good spirit. Stephan said "No", that they could still be saved according to the NT even after the resurrection, that God does not throw away people. Then the caller said "but Mormons have another Jesus, and the Bible says only he is the way to heaven". At this point Shawn stepped in and said if they have the wrong Jesus, as the Mormons do, they cannot be saved. Sarah said that if good deeds were enough, there would be no need for a savior. Do these two realize they contradict each other? Does Stephan realize no Evangelical theologian of any prominence agrees that this position clearly exists in the Bible? Shawn McCraney constantly talks of how Romans tells us that nature testifies of God, and God will find those who love him, but then he says that if that is the case, they must receive Christ in this life. And all of them seem to ignore Hebrews 9:27

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

As a Mormon, I find the NT does support the teaching of the Gospel to the dead, and their potential salvation (Jn 5:28-29; 1Pet 3:19-20; 1 Peter 4:5-6: Note in Peter the word "dead" is translated from the Greek "Nekros", meaning a dead body. Translators used the word "dead" in 1 Pet 2:24 for a different Greek word which means to be apart or removed or to die too something, but when Peter uses Nekros, he means a person whose body is physically dead, as in 1 Peter 4:5-6: 1 Cor 15:29.). But IF we must be repent and be baptized to be saved (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 2 Cor 7:10; 1 Pet 3:21);

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

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

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

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

THEN I guess those Mormon NT writers were confused, inserting all this LDS gunk into the NT.

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

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

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

Sola Scriptura Not McCraney's Alma Mater

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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