I spent Thursday evening speaking with some anti-Mormons at Temple Square in Salt Lake City. At one point a young fellow said to me that I just needed to accept Jesus and be assured of his Grace, through faith, and I could be saved. I told him I had already done so. He said I had not accepted the idea of only Jesus' grace to save me, and I said that was true, since the Bible and LDS scriptures make it clear that one must do certain things, such as be obedient (Hebres 5:8-9), endure to the end (Matt 10:22; Mark 13:13) and of course be baptized (John 3:5; Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Acts 22:16; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21).
Then he said "But you believe incorrectly about Jesus." I replied "What?" He said that because our theology of how God and Jesus relate to each other, then my understanding is not sufficient for salvation.
I replied that would mean all of the first and second century Christians were also not saved, since I believe what the Bible teaches about Jesus, and not the silly Trinity stuff. I said the early Christians had no idea what the Trinity was about, and if I am lost by his criteria, then so are they. I told him that theology is a luxury unneeded for salvation in the face of the scriptures.
What would you say?
Showing posts with label lds history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lds history. Show all posts
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
Was there a First Vision?
Many times it is asserted that there is no contemporary evidence for the First Vision having occurred. But it should not come as a surprise this is not true, as Richard Anderson published a beautiful, insightful and well documented article in BYU Studies in 1969 (9/3(1969):373-404), entitled Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision Through Reminiscences.
There are several things from this article and elsewhere which I will mention.
1. In The Reflector, February 1831, they report a correspondent from 1830 talks about Oliver Cowdery's preaching in Ohio which affirms "Smith had seen God frequently and personally."
2. Edward Stevenson reports he heard, around 1831, Joseph Smith preach about the First Vision.
3. Lucy Mack Smith placed the timing of the First Vision after 1819 religious revivals, but prior to the 1823 death of Alvin. She inserted Joseph Smith's narrative exactly as found in the History of the Church. This means she has the correct timing, and perfectly endorses the timing of the First Vision found within the account itself.
These are obviously all post 1830. Doesn't anyone remember something closer to 1820?
YES!
4. Pomeroy Tucker, a vicious enemy of the LDS faith, was a childhood friend of Joseph Smith and the Smiths' from 1816 when they moved to Palmyra, until he left for work in 1820, returning in 1823. In his 1867 history of Mormonism, he makes numerous statements which affirm something happens in 1820. For example, he notes Joseph Smith, as a "youth", prayed "in the wilderness" and had his first vision. He takes Orson Pratt's pamphlet on the First Vision as the guiding text, but adds several personal recollections to the text. In other words, he accidentally, as an enemy, confirms it.
5. Orsamus Turner, who was another childhood friend of Joseph Smith, left Palmyra in either 1821 or 1822. Among other things, he asserted in later writings there was no foundation to the idea that the Book of Mormon was copied from Spaulding. But more importantly for our discussion, he recalls that Joseph attended a Methodist Camp Meeting down on Vienna Road (1819), and tended to them. When combined with Tucker's statement that Joseph's "blasphemies" about God led him to withdraw from the Methodists around 1820, we have the main points of the First Vision confirmed.
Matt Brown noted that in the 1832 account of the First Vision, written by hand by Joseph Smith, Joseph notes that after God manifest his will do him, the Lord appeared. This account was in Oliver Cowdery's possession when he wrote his 1834 account of the founding of the Church. It seems obvious that the emphasis of Joseph Smith was on the restoration of the true church of God, not his personal vision. We see something akin to this in Paul's writings. Though we have three accounts of Jesus appearing to Paul, none of them are told to us by Paul. They are reported by Luke in Acts, not in Paul's letters. Paul focuses on doctrine and Church government. He obviously told his story at least twice, based on Luke's account in Acts. He surely told it more than that, as he is recognized by the Church as an Apostle. But Paul's vision is never cited as authority or any purpose except to establish that Jesus overcame death.
So when people say things like there is no contemporary reports of the the First Vision, note the newspaper account, Lucy Smith's account, Pomeroy Tucker's account, and the fact that Joseph's entire family believed him, and stayed with the Church. Let's compare: The earliest accounts of the resurrection of Jesus were written 20 or 30 years after the Resurrection, and have many contradictions. Thursday or Friday supper? Etc. Does that affect the reality of the Resurrection? No.
So the First Vision evidence is excellent. It did happen. Even Joseph's critics acknowledged it.
Enjoy.
There are several things from this article and elsewhere which I will mention.
1. In The Reflector, February 1831, they report a correspondent from 1830 talks about Oliver Cowdery's preaching in Ohio which affirms "Smith had seen God frequently and personally."
2. Edward Stevenson reports he heard, around 1831, Joseph Smith preach about the First Vision.
3. Lucy Mack Smith placed the timing of the First Vision after 1819 religious revivals, but prior to the 1823 death of Alvin. She inserted Joseph Smith's narrative exactly as found in the History of the Church. This means she has the correct timing, and perfectly endorses the timing of the First Vision found within the account itself.
These are obviously all post 1830. Doesn't anyone remember something closer to 1820?
YES!
4. Pomeroy Tucker, a vicious enemy of the LDS faith, was a childhood friend of Joseph Smith and the Smiths' from 1816 when they moved to Palmyra, until he left for work in 1820, returning in 1823. In his 1867 history of Mormonism, he makes numerous statements which affirm something happens in 1820. For example, he notes Joseph Smith, as a "youth", prayed "in the wilderness" and had his first vision. He takes Orson Pratt's pamphlet on the First Vision as the guiding text, but adds several personal recollections to the text. In other words, he accidentally, as an enemy, confirms it.
5. Orsamus Turner, who was another childhood friend of Joseph Smith, left Palmyra in either 1821 or 1822. Among other things, he asserted in later writings there was no foundation to the idea that the Book of Mormon was copied from Spaulding. But more importantly for our discussion, he recalls that Joseph attended a Methodist Camp Meeting down on Vienna Road (1819), and tended to them. When combined with Tucker's statement that Joseph's "blasphemies" about God led him to withdraw from the Methodists around 1820, we have the main points of the First Vision confirmed.
Matt Brown noted that in the 1832 account of the First Vision, written by hand by Joseph Smith, Joseph notes that after God manifest his will do him, the Lord appeared. This account was in Oliver Cowdery's possession when he wrote his 1834 account of the founding of the Church. It seems obvious that the emphasis of Joseph Smith was on the restoration of the true church of God, not his personal vision. We see something akin to this in Paul's writings. Though we have three accounts of Jesus appearing to Paul, none of them are told to us by Paul. They are reported by Luke in Acts, not in Paul's letters. Paul focuses on doctrine and Church government. He obviously told his story at least twice, based on Luke's account in Acts. He surely told it more than that, as he is recognized by the Church as an Apostle. But Paul's vision is never cited as authority or any purpose except to establish that Jesus overcame death.
So when people say things like there is no contemporary reports of the the First Vision, note the newspaper account, Lucy Smith's account, Pomeroy Tucker's account, and the fact that Joseph's entire family believed him, and stayed with the Church. Let's compare: The earliest accounts of the resurrection of Jesus were written 20 or 30 years after the Resurrection, and have many contradictions. Thursday or Friday supper? Etc. Does that affect the reality of the Resurrection? No.
So the First Vision evidence is excellent. It did happen. Even Joseph's critics acknowledged it.
Enjoy.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Mormons ARE Christians
"Mormons have another Jesus!" "Mormons' Jesus is not the Jesus of historical Christianity!" "Mormons are not Christian."
These are very typical slurs hurled at Mormons by anti-Mormons. They are slurs because they are not academic observations used to stimulate understanding. They are intended as insults to the closely held personal beliefs of millions of Mormons. I can actually agree with the first two statements, as they are true. But the history of Christianity is conclusive in showing Mormons are Christians.
I heard one goof-ball say "What if I say I am a Mormon, I just don't believe in Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the First Vision or the restoration of priesthood authority? That's the same as saying you are Christians."
It is if you are an idiot.
First, anti-Mormons don't get to define what a Christian is to anyone other than themselves. I seriously don't care if someone doesn't think I am a Christian. Second, I believe in the same foundational document, the Bible, as they do, but I interpret it according to my conscience, not theirs. Lastly, their definition of a Christian would exclude all of the people in the Bible, including Jesus. Academics, Jews and Mormons are unable to locate the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible. It is a conclusion based on a philosophical perspective which is not Biblical. The Catholic Encyclopedia states it is nowhere in the Old Testament, and only inferred in the New Testament.
Drilling down, the LDS Articles of Faith grant the right to believe and worship to each person individually. So we expect to be excluded from other people's beliefs. And we define what it means to be LDS. But the Bible provides no definition of what a Christian is beyond one who believes in Jesus. There is no doctrinal litmus test. Bart Ehrman has written and taught extensively on the "Lost Christianities" which were divergent beliefs from what is now considered "orthodox" Christianity. They believed in some way in Jesus. The current "orthodox" Christianity is, from a historical standpoint, the result of fortunate circumstances and some lucky breaks in history. The Arian controversy, for example, could easily have resulted in a very different theology about Jesus, with Athanasian theology considered apostate.
We believe in Jesus, as described fully in the Bible. In fact I would assert we, as Mormons, believe more closely in the Biblical Jesus than any other people, as we understand the circumstances of Christ in the eternities and the context of the Bible. No later than February 1832 the clear description of man's destiny to become like God is revealed, and soon thereafter the Book of Abraham asserts this understanding of a Council of Gods was the background of the Bible. Sure enough, we get archaeological discoveries about 100 years later that show the people of the Bible DID know this was the background of the Bible. See Mark Smith's, "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism" or visit Micheal Heiser's website, and see how a devout Evangelical scholar presents the indisputable fact of history that Israel DID believe that God was among many gods.
Even more pointedly, early Christians believed and understood the teachings of the Bible to mean men could become gods. The earliest existing defense of the Christian faith was written by Justin Martyr around 140 AD. He notes Jesus is a "second god" after the creator of all things. He also notes our faith is that we will also become gods. What it meant to become a "god" gradually evolves, until we see Athanasius try to harmonize this belief with Trinitarianism by saying it is about fellowship with God and Jesus, not our own development.
But it is realistic to argue that Mormons are Christians, because we do believe what the Bible teaches about Jesus, not the stuff added over the centuries after the authors of the Bible had died.
Second, the Bible is the common document between anti-Mormon Christians and Mormon Christians. It is not the Book of Mormon, the First Vision or any other particular LDS belief. But let's consider the Catholics vs. Evangelicals. Are they both Christian? Today we would say yes, but historically the Catholic Church did not consider Evangelicals to be Christians for hundreds of years. They literally discriminated and killed each other. Protestants then really tried to get the Bible in the hands of commoners. This was a great thing, unless you were killed for trying to do so. This has many positive things, especially about personal spirituality.
But there are some negative things. Specifically in not understanding the context or content of the Bible. Or reading the Bible with a pre-existing prejudice from extra-Biblical teachers. Today we hear most Evangelicals argue it is by faith alone through grace alone that people are saved. But that simply ignores the plain teaching of the Bible that we do contribute to our salvation. God wants to save us, according to the Bible, but we have to follow him. Calvinists go further and say God has already decided who to save, which is the logical conclusion of Evangelical doctrine, and we are unable to do anything to become saved if we are not on God's pre-existing list.
I am routinely accused of hating the Bible because I discuss issues of textual criticism with people. I love the New Testament. I love truth even more. To fail to try to understand not just what the words mean, but what the original words were, is, in my opinion, not following Jesus' admonition that we demonstrate our love by keeping his word.
Finally, as I mentioned above, the Catholics defined the Protestants as non-Christians. It did not mean anything. Walter Martin did a great job of creating hatred of the "cults". Read early Christian history. They considered themselves a cult. They were initially Jews (followers of Abraham and Moses) who kept that faith and added to it Jesus and his teachings. They were called "Christians" because their Hebrew beliefs center on the interpretation added to it by Jesus, and the belief that Jesus was the son of God. Read John 10. This was blasphemy to the "orthodox" religion of the day, and they felt justified in stoning Jesus. Or beating the Apostles. Or killing Christians. Or, calling them names like "heretics". They eventually kicked them out of the synagogues, because they were different. The Christians considered themselves the children of Abraham, either by birth or adoption. They had the Old Testament, which they considered scripture, and they added to it new revelation. They were proud to be called Christians. Men like Paul still considered themselves Jews, regardless of the name calling, as well as Christians.
And so do we.
Mormons are Christians.
These are very typical slurs hurled at Mormons by anti-Mormons. They are slurs because they are not academic observations used to stimulate understanding. They are intended as insults to the closely held personal beliefs of millions of Mormons. I can actually agree with the first two statements, as they are true. But the history of Christianity is conclusive in showing Mormons are Christians.
I heard one goof-ball say "What if I say I am a Mormon, I just don't believe in Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the First Vision or the restoration of priesthood authority? That's the same as saying you are Christians."
It is if you are an idiot.
First, anti-Mormons don't get to define what a Christian is to anyone other than themselves. I seriously don't care if someone doesn't think I am a Christian. Second, I believe in the same foundational document, the Bible, as they do, but I interpret it according to my conscience, not theirs. Lastly, their definition of a Christian would exclude all of the people in the Bible, including Jesus. Academics, Jews and Mormons are unable to locate the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible. It is a conclusion based on a philosophical perspective which is not Biblical. The Catholic Encyclopedia states it is nowhere in the Old Testament, and only inferred in the New Testament.
Drilling down, the LDS Articles of Faith grant the right to believe and worship to each person individually. So we expect to be excluded from other people's beliefs. And we define what it means to be LDS. But the Bible provides no definition of what a Christian is beyond one who believes in Jesus. There is no doctrinal litmus test. Bart Ehrman has written and taught extensively on the "Lost Christianities" which were divergent beliefs from what is now considered "orthodox" Christianity. They believed in some way in Jesus. The current "orthodox" Christianity is, from a historical standpoint, the result of fortunate circumstances and some lucky breaks in history. The Arian controversy, for example, could easily have resulted in a very different theology about Jesus, with Athanasian theology considered apostate.
We believe in Jesus, as described fully in the Bible. In fact I would assert we, as Mormons, believe more closely in the Biblical Jesus than any other people, as we understand the circumstances of Christ in the eternities and the context of the Bible. No later than February 1832 the clear description of man's destiny to become like God is revealed, and soon thereafter the Book of Abraham asserts this understanding of a Council of Gods was the background of the Bible. Sure enough, we get archaeological discoveries about 100 years later that show the people of the Bible DID know this was the background of the Bible. See Mark Smith's, "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism" or visit Micheal Heiser's website, and see how a devout Evangelical scholar presents the indisputable fact of history that Israel DID believe that God was among many gods.
Even more pointedly, early Christians believed and understood the teachings of the Bible to mean men could become gods. The earliest existing defense of the Christian faith was written by Justin Martyr around 140 AD. He notes Jesus is a "second god" after the creator of all things. He also notes our faith is that we will also become gods. What it meant to become a "god" gradually evolves, until we see Athanasius try to harmonize this belief with Trinitarianism by saying it is about fellowship with God and Jesus, not our own development.
But it is realistic to argue that Mormons are Christians, because we do believe what the Bible teaches about Jesus, not the stuff added over the centuries after the authors of the Bible had died.
Second, the Bible is the common document between anti-Mormon Christians and Mormon Christians. It is not the Book of Mormon, the First Vision or any other particular LDS belief. But let's consider the Catholics vs. Evangelicals. Are they both Christian? Today we would say yes, but historically the Catholic Church did not consider Evangelicals to be Christians for hundreds of years. They literally discriminated and killed each other. Protestants then really tried to get the Bible in the hands of commoners. This was a great thing, unless you were killed for trying to do so. This has many positive things, especially about personal spirituality.
But there are some negative things. Specifically in not understanding the context or content of the Bible. Or reading the Bible with a pre-existing prejudice from extra-Biblical teachers. Today we hear most Evangelicals argue it is by faith alone through grace alone that people are saved. But that simply ignores the plain teaching of the Bible that we do contribute to our salvation. God wants to save us, according to the Bible, but we have to follow him. Calvinists go further and say God has already decided who to save, which is the logical conclusion of Evangelical doctrine, and we are unable to do anything to become saved if we are not on God's pre-existing list.
I am routinely accused of hating the Bible because I discuss issues of textual criticism with people. I love the New Testament. I love truth even more. To fail to try to understand not just what the words mean, but what the original words were, is, in my opinion, not following Jesus' admonition that we demonstrate our love by keeping his word.
Finally, as I mentioned above, the Catholics defined the Protestants as non-Christians. It did not mean anything. Walter Martin did a great job of creating hatred of the "cults". Read early Christian history. They considered themselves a cult. They were initially Jews (followers of Abraham and Moses) who kept that faith and added to it Jesus and his teachings. They were called "Christians" because their Hebrew beliefs center on the interpretation added to it by Jesus, and the belief that Jesus was the son of God. Read John 10. This was blasphemy to the "orthodox" religion of the day, and they felt justified in stoning Jesus. Or beating the Apostles. Or killing Christians. Or, calling them names like "heretics". They eventually kicked them out of the synagogues, because they were different. The Christians considered themselves the children of Abraham, either by birth or adoption. They had the Old Testament, which they considered scripture, and they added to it new revelation. They were proud to be called Christians. Men like Paul still considered themselves Jews, regardless of the name calling, as well as Christians.
And so do we.
Mormons are Christians.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Shawn McCraney (or is that McCranky?) Born Again Mormon History
What if I told you history which consisted of a couple of facts and tons of conjecture? What if I ignored the best non-Christian and Christian historians and simply pushed the discredited history of ex-Christian cranks. To opponents of Christianity, no big deal, any message is better than none. To Christians, it is to be expected, but would still be saddening and frustrating.
So goes this years series by Shawn McCraney on LDS history. I have watched portions of several of his shows. As usual, his ultimate source of LDS historical reality is the discredited postulations of critics and the outright hostile to LDS history.
Last week he picked an obscure dude's explanation of how mass movements are created and sustained, Eric Hoffer. McCraney failed to note that Hoffer is never to have known to have commented on Mormonism. Instead, he targeted the mindset of Nazi Germany and Stalin. And, oh yes, Paul of Tarsus, who persecuted Christians then became an ardent evangelist thereof. McCraney noted the three types of leaders of new movements posited by Hoffer, were "The Men of Words", "Fanatics", and "Men of Action".
Shawn McCraney now calls Brigham Young a "Fanatic" under terms of this definition. This is because he sees Joseph Smith as the "Man of Words", and current leaders as the "Men of Action". This assumes Joseph Smith made up the things he ascribed to revelation. It would also assume Joseph Smith did not lead people.
Worse, Joseph Smith taught that people needed to become their own leaders, using their own agency, and Brigham Young reinforced this. The LDS Church from its beginning has argued that it is essential that each person obtain their own witness, and not blindly follow.
McCraney says that all mass movements have fanatics which takes up growth. Once a sustainable size is acheived, then the "Men of Action" establish non-radical channels.
McCraney says Fanatics took over the LDS Church after Carthage. The fanatic mentality took over. The problem is that Brigham Young, prior to Mormonism, shows now tendancy to fanaticism.
He asserted that with the death of David O. McCay, the leadership of Fanaticism changed. He simply conveniently ignores the actions of LDS leaders. President Kimball would not have done anything radical, under this theory. So changing rules about blacks holding the priesthood would never happen. But it did. McCraney says this is typical of Men of Action. Huh? Changing 130+ years of doctrine fits this pattern? Only if you ignore history.
Building over 100+ temples fits this pattern? No.
Men of Action, according to McCraney, are simply managers. Wow.
Simply speaking, McCraney is simply trying to put a crackpot view of LDS progression using a theory which is more indicative of "another shiny object". LDS history, let alone its leaders, do not fit this theory. The LDS leaders do not choose leadership as a career. They choose their faith, and at times are called to lead. McCraney cannot see that the LDS Church teaches individuality and structure exactly as Christ taught. Jesus taught there is a Church (Matt 16:18). Paul and Peter and John taught there was a structured organization called the Church. Yet McCraney, like most evangelicals, ignore the clear teaching of scripture to follow their hobbies. Which is why Paul and Jesus both made it clear that the choice to preach is not by those who want to make a career out of it, but by those called upon to teach:
Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent?
Luke 8:38 Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying,
39 Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him.
Once again we see Shawn McCraney trying to stuff the well rounded LDS Church into the Triangle he has come up with to justify an intellectual approach.
I will discuss his response to Bob (Not Me) on the call where he mocked the fact Bob was led, according to the Biblical model, by following the Spirit preaching to him. His assertions of the LDS Church teaching the exact opposite of the Bible will also be addressed. He just doesn't know what he is talking about, but, as noted before, he is afraid to have Mormons on the show to demonstrate from the Bible why they are in fact Biblical.
More later.
So goes this years series by Shawn McCraney on LDS history. I have watched portions of several of his shows. As usual, his ultimate source of LDS historical reality is the discredited postulations of critics and the outright hostile to LDS history.
Last week he picked an obscure dude's explanation of how mass movements are created and sustained, Eric Hoffer. McCraney failed to note that Hoffer is never to have known to have commented on Mormonism. Instead, he targeted the mindset of Nazi Germany and Stalin. And, oh yes, Paul of Tarsus, who persecuted Christians then became an ardent evangelist thereof. McCraney noted the three types of leaders of new movements posited by Hoffer, were "The Men of Words", "Fanatics", and "Men of Action".
Shawn McCraney now calls Brigham Young a "Fanatic" under terms of this definition. This is because he sees Joseph Smith as the "Man of Words", and current leaders as the "Men of Action". This assumes Joseph Smith made up the things he ascribed to revelation. It would also assume Joseph Smith did not lead people.
Worse, Joseph Smith taught that people needed to become their own leaders, using their own agency, and Brigham Young reinforced this. The LDS Church from its beginning has argued that it is essential that each person obtain their own witness, and not blindly follow.
McCraney says that all mass movements have fanatics which takes up growth. Once a sustainable size is acheived, then the "Men of Action" establish non-radical channels.
McCraney says Fanatics took over the LDS Church after Carthage. The fanatic mentality took over. The problem is that Brigham Young, prior to Mormonism, shows now tendancy to fanaticism.
He asserted that with the death of David O. McCay, the leadership of Fanaticism changed. He simply conveniently ignores the actions of LDS leaders. President Kimball would not have done anything radical, under this theory. So changing rules about blacks holding the priesthood would never happen. But it did. McCraney says this is typical of Men of Action. Huh? Changing 130+ years of doctrine fits this pattern? Only if you ignore history.
Building over 100+ temples fits this pattern? No.
Men of Action, according to McCraney, are simply managers. Wow.
Simply speaking, McCraney is simply trying to put a crackpot view of LDS progression using a theory which is more indicative of "another shiny object". LDS history, let alone its leaders, do not fit this theory. The LDS leaders do not choose leadership as a career. They choose their faith, and at times are called to lead. McCraney cannot see that the LDS Church teaches individuality and structure exactly as Christ taught. Jesus taught there is a Church (Matt 16:18). Paul and Peter and John taught there was a structured organization called the Church. Yet McCraney, like most evangelicals, ignore the clear teaching of scripture to follow their hobbies. Which is why Paul and Jesus both made it clear that the choice to preach is not by those who want to make a career out of it, but by those called upon to teach:
Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent?
Luke 8:38 Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying,
39 Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him.
Once again we see Shawn McCraney trying to stuff the well rounded LDS Church into the Triangle he has come up with to justify an intellectual approach.
I will discuss his response to Bob (Not Me) on the call where he mocked the fact Bob was led, according to the Biblical model, by following the Spirit preaching to him. His assertions of the LDS Church teaching the exact opposite of the Bible will also be addressed. He just doesn't know what he is talking about, but, as noted before, he is afraid to have Mormons on the show to demonstrate from the Bible why they are in fact Biblical.
More later.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Shawn McCraney's Attitude About Research
I thought those who think I might exaggerate when describing anti-Mormon approaches to research and accuracy being somewhat shy of the mark of "rigorous", here is a statement written by Shawn McCraney about his labeling such work as being analogous to a child molester's abuse of children. Read for yourself:
But I have learned that nothing is so simple when anti-Mormons are concerned about losing an agrument, or at least looking like they might not be the expert they hold themselves out to be.
Food for thought when you accuse Mormons of not representing themselves. Odds are, they are really not invited.
Bob
Re: Van Hale InterviewNote that he highlights and repeats the "no matter what they say". Shawn's Born Again Mormon website states its mission to members of the LDS Church is:
by Shawn on Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:45 pmNothing has changed in my opinion with regard to The Bob and his points. I do not read them because I believe anyone who would defend Joseph Smith's Mormonism is not worthy of being read. I've read Joseph Smith's gospel. I've read LDS doctrine. A self-appointed defender of Mormonism will receive no respect or time from me because no matter what they say - no matter what they say - they are defending Joseph Smith's Mormonism. In my opinion taking the time to listen to their points is like listening to a pedophile promote his own pre-school business - theres just far too much twisted ulterior motive involved.
Hope this helps.
...[we] seek to confront and help remove any doctrines which demand anything more than faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.I guess I don't get how to harmonize an outreach to LDS members which confronts their doctrines but avoids talking about their doctrines. Much of Shawn's attack material is designed to attack the human problems of Joseph Smith and his successors. But even when he discusses Baptism for the Dead, he only confronts the strawman he created on TV, and then avoids discussing the LDS evidence with active LDS members. Since he has a section in his "Purpose" area on his website called "To disaffected members of the LDS Church", I assume the section "To members of the LDS Church" means believing members.
But I have learned that nothing is so simple when anti-Mormons are concerned about losing an agrument, or at least looking like they might not be the expert they hold themselves out to be.
Food for thought when you accuse Mormons of not representing themselves. Odds are, they are really not invited.
Bob
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)