All of Shawn McCraney's "Lies"

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

Really?

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

That is a lie.

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

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

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

Faithful to his one wife.

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Shawn's notes on the first vision:

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

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

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

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

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

Wait, Stephen sees God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Perfection and "Gar"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anti's In Manti

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Language of Love (literally and filthy)

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

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

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

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

Ex-Mormon Leonard's Eternal Insecurity About Authorial Intent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to the story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shawn McCraney, Stefan Dennis, Adams Road and False Doctrine

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

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

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

Not so much, really.

He wrote in an email to me:

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

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

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

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

A couple of easy questions:

How many real priesthoods are described in the Bible?

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

Was the Aaronic priesthood ever the priesthood of Royalty?

What is the role of a priest?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mormon Coffee Closes Discussion on Free Speech with Mormons

This is a weird thing for me. I had responded to a post about Mormons and Evangelicals debating, and how I find Evangelicals who "reach out" to Mormons are usually unBiblical in their approach, and are generally unChristian as well. I accidentally addressed it to Aaron Shafovaloff, when it should have been directed to Sharon Lindbloom, both of Mormon Research Ministry (MRM). If you like, you can see the exchange here.

What's weird is that I only posted once, and wanted to apologize for mislabeling to whom my remarks should have been directed. Instead, after deflecting the substance of my comments by demonstrating precisely my point which was: Aaron doesn't preach what he believes, but tries to contrast what he believes against what he says Mormons believe; They then discontinued further comments.

The truth is Aarons characterizations of LDS doctrine are precisely at issue here. He has notions about LDS doctrine around forgiveness of sin (You must be perfect in your behavior, says Aaron, or else LDS leaders say you will go hell), perceptions of scripture (Mormons don't really believe the Bible so much as tolerate it as an unauthoritative trick play), and my personal spirituality (he knows I am not born again through some means, which allows him to therefore consider me a target for his form of preaching), all leads him to ignore the Bible's message on proselyting: Gentle, respectful, and go away if they don't want to speak to you.

Instead, I got this response:

And I [Aaron] don’t share the notion that any public criticism of Mormonism in street preaching is automatically uncivil or disrespectful. It’s part of the task of calling you to repentance. You don’t like that, and it seems you never will until you are born again, and until then you’ll keep defining “civility” and “respect” as that which excludes public, heralding criticism and calls to repentance.

I of course never said ANY public criticism of Mormonism is uncivil. In fact, I cited two people who are decidedly NOT in favor of Mormonism as examples of how to act consistent with the Bible.

Moreover, I don't have a problem responding to a call to repent. Since Aaron presumes to know my heart, he feels equally confident expounding upon my sins and pride. The point is not his "right" to call me or anyone to repent. He has that right. The point is the way he does it is not scriptural for post-crucifixtion Christians.

Which brings me to Sharon. Apparently they decided that discussing Evangelical and Mormon proselyting styles was not a topic they wished to continue receiving comments on. Sharon made a response, essentially saying that Acts 17-19 and 2 Tim 2:23-25 supported their behavior at MRM, and then they turned comments off. So let me respond here, at some considerable depth (sorry for those of you rolling your eyes in the "here goes dad again" fashion).

Sharon,
I don't know what you see in Acts 17-19 that you find supports public attacks on other faiths by Christians, better known as "Confrontational Evangelism" among its advocates. I have written on the subject before, but you drove me to dig to try to find if I had missed something by the confident manner you through out these chapters to support such abuse of liberty. So I have written a comprehensive list of every missionary opportunity contained in those three chapters, which I will attach below. To say the least, I am still scratching my head. Where do you find even a single incident to support the idea that going to people who don't want to talk with you, or attacking the faith of others, is present anywhere in these passages? The words 'repent' and 'repentance' each occur only once in these three chapters, and they are done in speeches NOT addressed to any particular person (see 17:30 and 19:4) or even the people as a whole standing presently in the crowds. Indirectly, yes, but not so someone would take particular notice of an attack on their faith. Instead, in the 13 missionary vignettes contained in those three chapters, we find Paul leaving EVERY TIME he engages people who resist him. Not just "usually", but every single time. In fact, Paul taught publicly for 2 years during this period in an open lecture hall where only people came who wanted to learn about Christianity.

As I note in example 13, after 3 years of living in Ephesus, the people who accused Paul of attacking their belief in idols were unable to produce a single witness to testify of Paul attacking the goddess Diana. NOT ONE. Yet we have Aaron proudly describing his contrasting method using wrongly contextualized passages from Isaiah to show how he is fine describing his faith in terms of what the LDS faith is not. This is the very opposite of what you claim is contained in these three chapters. Now for the list:

1. Acts 17:1-9 Paul’s preaching is exclusively about Jesus, nothing noted about attacking the Jews or anyone else.

2. Acts 17:10-15 Famous Berean Jews. But they welcomed Paul. And he teaches Jesus, not that they are stupid.

3. Acts 17:16-18 Paul is said to argue with Jews and others in public. But what does verse 18 say he proclaims? Polytheism, since he described Jesus being resurrected and the Gospel. He does not say anything against their beliefs. In fact, Paul obviously says nothing about their beliefs at all, since they interpreted his teaching through the lens of their understanding of the gods.

4. Acts 17:19-34 Famous Mars Hill, where Paul was invited to speak, (did you notice that Sharon?) and he proclaims the “Unknown God”, Jesus Christ. His message is the Gospel and the resurrection. His recorded proclamation to repent (vs.30), to those in the audience who invited him to speak, is in no way directed as a personal attack or even an intrusion at their event. He was, after all, the invited speaker, not just a self-appointed proclaimer.

5. Acts 18:1-7 Paul goes to Corinth, and argues with the Jews in the synagogue that Jesus is the Christ. He stops when they become completely unwilling to listen, and vows to never go back to teaching them. In other words, if they don’t want him, he doesn’t go to them.

6. Acts 18:7-17 Paul teaches many converts. Acts does not ascribe any particular message of what Paul is preaching, but the Jews say he is persuading people to worship God in ways not prescribed in the Law. So his message did not attack the Law or Jews, but advocated a belief outside of the Jews understanding.

7. Acts 18:18-21 Paul goes to Ephesus, and is, again, INVITED to speak in the synagogue. In fact, they want him to stay longer.

8. Acts 18:22-23 Paul travels to Caesarea, Jerusalem, Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening the members of the Church. In fact, in his letters back to those regions, there is no indication that he attacks any other faith. He simply teaches Jesus and the Gospel.

9. Acts 18:24-28 Apollos, having only been imperfectly taught the Way of God, Paul’s friends Priscilla and Aquila hear him launching on the Jews, and take him aside to correct his understanding. Guess what? He then only refutes Jewish misunderstanding by demonstrating Jesus is the Messiah from the scriptures.

10. Acts 19:1-7 Paul teaches some folks who thought they had joined the Church that they didn’t have it correct, and taught them about Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

11. Acts 19:8-10 Paul speaks and argues persuasively in the synagogue in Ephesus. When they stubbornly refused to believe him, he leaves. He then holds discussions (yes, that is the word in the NIV) in a lecture hall where people interested could come and hear. This was in the fashion of modern college instruction settings where a professor could lecture and respond to inquiries from those in attendance. Not a "drive by" confrontational preaching setting, but those interested could come.

12. Acts 19:11-20 A vignette is inserted to show the power of God. Paul blesses handkerchiefs, which are then taken to the sick, and they are healed. The incident of the sons of Sceva is told, as well as the conversion of many as a result of hearing of this powerful story. I like how the devils laugh at the sons' lame attempt to use the name of Jesus.

13. Acts 19:21-41 Perhaps the single clearest example that Paul NEVER teaches against other faiths. This is where pagan silversmiths realize the huge impact on their business as Paul racks up thousands of Christian converts. So they riot, claiming Paul and his group are teaching that “gods made with hands are not gods” (vs. 26, NRSV). They dragged two of Paul’s traveling companions to the theater, and there the town clerk sets the record straight. He disbands the crowd by telling them that in fact Paul and his people “are neither temple robbers nor blasphemers of our goddess,”(vs 37, NRSV) and says they must bring charges in court or risk punishment for disorderly conduct. The bottom line: After 3 years of living in Ephesus, they could not find a single witness who could say that Paul had ever said anything against the local goddess, Diana/Artemis. Think about that. He taught in an open lecture hall for two years to anyone who would walk in, and they could not find a single witness to confirm he had taught against any specific belief. He had only taught Jesus.

Sharon,
You also seem to totally miss what Paul is instructing Timothy in 2 Tim 2:23-26. First of all, you don't seem to want to accept what verse 23 is saying: Don't engage in strife. Next, Paul tells them to avoid arguing and verbally fighting. "A slave of the Lord ought not to fight" (Literal Greek translation) seems pretty obvious. But the word "fight" means to battle, as in at least two soldiers facing off against each other, and in Biblical usage means to engage in "fighting, quarrels, strife, disputes" (BDAG, page 622, entry "mache"). Paul uses the verb form of mache from verse 23 in his next statement quoted above in verse 24, commanding Timothy "not to fight".

You also seem to miss the obvious lesson from Acts 17-19 captured in 2 Tim 2. Timothy was with Paul at Mars Hill and most all of the 13 incidents contained in the 3 chapters you cite vainly for support. Timothy knows what Paul means by contending for the faith. He is with Paul almost constantly for the rest of Paul's life, starting in Derbe in Acts 16:1. Aside from two letters addressed to him, Paul cites Timothy as being with him in 8 of his letters (Romans, 1 Cor, 2 Cor, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thess, 2 Thess, Philemon). He is even mentioned in Hebrews. That leaves just 3 letters composed by Paul where Timothy is not explicitly mentioned as being with Paul; Galations, Ephesians and Titus.

Timothy knows that when Paul says "not to fight/quarrel", he means don't attack another man's faith. In fact, when Paul says to avoid entertaining foolish disputes and to respond patiently, Timothy knows Paul means to keep teaching the Gospel. Because he saw that, and that is the language Paul uses. He doesn't say "Draw contrasts between the truth of our faith with the lies of others to provoke arguments." NO. He says the exact opposite: "Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments because you know they produce quarrels...Those who oppose [God's bond servant] he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of truth."

Paul notes to the Corinthians that he was sent "not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." (1 Cor 1:17). So that complicated, compare and contrast style Aaron believes is correct is not how Paul did it, since it negated the Cross. But Maybe Aaron is more powerful, learned or insightful than Paul, and need not follow his example. It could happen. Sure it could.

Every time Paul talks about preaching, 100% of the time the message is about Jesus and the Gospel, and never is preaching intended to start a debate about the other person's faith. It is always a debate about Jesus. Talking about Joseph Smith is exactly the kind of satanic preaching Paul describes as foolishness. If you really believe we have the wrong system of beliefs, tell us about yours. That is the Biblical model.

This is another case where I believe people such as MRM simply indulge their personal lust for argument, and ignore the plain teaching of the Bible through self-serving filtering of the words of scripture. It is literally inconceivable that Paul, who ALWAYS walks away from religious strife if his presence is not wanted or if he cannot stick to preaching the Gospel and Jesus, and has had Timothy at his side for most of the years of this example, right from the verses you mistakenly cite, and he commands Timothy "not to fight/quarrel" over silly questions; to repeat, it is inconceivable to any rational reading of Paul's letter to think he is giving his OK to confrontational evangelism or seeking out people to offend the masses through holding of signs with offensive slogans, even if you think the slogan is true. Remember, three years of teaching among pagan worshippers of Diana, and not a single instance of him negatively commenting about the prevailing religion. And we have this of his interaction in the Jewish synagogue's and the temple:

Acts 24:12 And they neither found me [Paul] in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city:

Timothy was there with Paul in Ephesus for nearly all of the three years as near as we can tell. He was with Paul in Jerusalem when Paul is defending himself. Is Paul lying in front of those with whom he has travelled for years? If so, then Paul is lying for the Lord, right?

MRM, in my opinion, simply doesn't understand scripture. Which is why MRM is unqualified to call me or anyone else to repentance: They don't know what to repent from or change to. False teachers, however, will call night day, and try to lead from the light to the dark. Thus it is easy to show from MRM's representatives' statements alone that they are the ones who have "another Gospel", even without determining the truth of Mormonism. You can't teach falsehoods about scripture and have any spiritual authority.

That is what I wanted to say, if they had not turned the comments off on their article about the free exchange of ideas between Mormons and Evangelicals. Funny, huh, that they accuse the Mormons of being thin skinned about criticism, but they turn the comments off when the discussion swings against them. Hmm. What do we call that when we assume we don't have to live by the standards we demand from others?

Bob

Mormons Have Another Jesus: The Biblical One

I am going to take the suggestion of one of those who recently commented to address the topic of the accusation that Mormons have another Jesus, different from traditional Christian faiths.

President Hinckley noted that we as Mormons DO have a different Jesus than Traditional Christianity. (June 20, 1998 Desseret News)

His point is the real Jesus is not revealed in the creeds or dogmas of Christianity. The real Jesus revealed Himself to Joseph Smith at the beginning of this dispensation. This is consistent with the Biblical teaching that "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." (1Cor 12:3) He is not known or discovered in the Bible or through pious reflection. He is only known via revelation.

Depending upon the attitude of the person I am talking with, I will measure the way I basically tell them they have the unBiblical Jesus, and I am OK having "another Jesus", as long as mine is the one described in the Bible.

When the Bible writes John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent," I am hard pressed to reconcile the traditional Trinitarian beliefs that Jesus is also that one True God. When Stephen says "I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God,"(Acts 7:56), I cannot find a logical way to reconcile the fact that Jesus is specifically said to NOT be God, so how can he be the Trinitarian God? It is logically impossible for a thing to be next to itself. If it were possible, then we could play the games like asking if God can create a rock to heavy to lift, or if there is a number too high for him to count to.

At the end of the day, Mormons believe in the Jesus of the Bible without any modifications of who that person is. We also believe he continues to communicate with man. If a Trinitarian is honest in a conversation, they will have to admit that their beliefs are not the obvious product of scripture, and history tell us that up until the 4th Century, believers were not necessarily those who held a Trinitarian point of view. Though Trinitarians like to say their beliefs are the logical conclusions drawn from the evidence of scripture, without a Trinitarian point of view one would never formulate such a conclusion. Philosophy outside of the Bible created Trinitarian insights into the Bible. I am specifically a Christian because I believe in every explicit aspect of the Nature of Jesus as taught in the Bible. He is the literal son of God. He is my one and only Savior. He is divine, and yet wholly separate from God the Father. There is one God the Father. Jesus Christ is Lord and son of God. These points do not require a belief in the Trinity to believe the words penned in scripture.

So I contend they made "another Jesus", and I follow the one we learn of in the Bible.

Suggestions?

I would be interested in going into topics the regular readers of this blog might be curious about. I have been trying to focus, as always, on active anti-Mormon issues being kicked around and their doctrinal implications. I will continue that vein if I no one has a specific topic. But I wanted to be sure those who may have issues come up who want a less nuanced or poised response from me have a chance to ask.

Let me know, or point me at issues you would like to have commented upon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What if I told you history which consisted of a couple of facts and tons of conjecture? What if I ignored the best non-Christian and Christian historians and simply pushed the discredited history of ex-Christian cranks. To opponents of Christianity, no big deal, any message is better than none. To Christians, it is to be expected, but would still be saddening and frustrating.

So goes this years series by Shawn McCraney on LDS history. I have watched portions of several of his shows. As usual, his ultimate source of LDS historical reality is the discredited postulations of critics and the outright hostile to LDS history.

Last week he picked an obscure dude's explanation of how mass movements are created and sustained, Eric Hoffer. McCraney failed to note that Hoffer is never to have known to have commented on Mormonism. Instead, he targeted the mindset of Nazi Germany and Stalin. And, oh yes, Paul of Tarsus, who persecuted Christians then became an ardent evangelist thereof. McCraney noted the three types of leaders of new movements posited by Hoffer, were "The Men of Words", "Fanatics", and "Men of Action".

Shawn McCraney now calls Brigham Young a "Fanatic" under terms of this definition. This is because he sees Joseph Smith as the "Man of Words", and current leaders as the "Men of Action". This assumes Joseph Smith made up the things he ascribed to revelation. It would also assume Joseph Smith did not lead people.

Worse, Joseph Smith taught that people needed to become their own leaders, using their own agency, and Brigham Young reinforced this. The LDS Church from its beginning has argued that it is essential that each person obtain their own witness, and not blindly follow.

McCraney says that all mass movements have fanatics which takes up growth. Once a sustainable size is acheived, then the "Men of Action" establish non-radical channels.

McCraney says Fanatics took over the LDS Church after Carthage. The fanatic mentality took over. The problem is that Brigham Young, prior to Mormonism, shows now tendancy to fanaticism.

He asserted that with the death of David O. McCay, the leadership of Fanaticism changed. He simply conveniently ignores the actions of LDS leaders. President Kimball would not have done anything radical, under this theory. So changing rules about blacks holding the priesthood would never happen. But it did. McCraney says this is typical of Men of Action. Huh? Changing 130+ years of doctrine fits this pattern? Only if you ignore history.

Building over 100+ temples fits this pattern? No.

Men of Action, according to McCraney, are simply managers. Wow.

Simply speaking, McCraney is simply trying to put a crackpot view of LDS progression using a theory which is more indicative of "another shiny object". LDS history, let alone its leaders, do not fit this theory. The LDS leaders do not choose leadership as a career. They choose their faith, and at times are called to lead. McCraney cannot see that the LDS Church teaches individuality and structure exactly as Christ taught. Jesus taught there is a Church (Matt 16:18). Paul and Peter and John taught there was a structured organization called the Church. Yet McCraney, like most evangelicals, ignore the clear teaching of scripture to follow their hobbies. Which is why Paul and Jesus both made it clear that the choice to preach is not by those who want to make a career out of it, but by those called upon to teach:


Rom 10:15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent?

Luke 8:38 Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him that he might be with him: but Jesus sent him away, saying,
39 Return to thine own house, and shew how great things God hath done unto thee. And he went his way, and published throughout the whole city how great things Jesus had done unto him.

Once again we see Shawn McCraney trying to stuff the well rounded LDS Church into the Triangle he has come up with to justify an intellectual approach.

I will discuss his response to Bob (Not Me) on the call where he mocked the fact Bob was led, according to the Biblical model, by following the Spirit preaching to him. His assertions of the LDS Church teaching the exact opposite of the Bible will also be addressed. He just doesn't know what he is talking about, but, as noted before, he is afraid to have Mormons on the show to demonstrate from the Bible why they are in fact Biblical.

More later.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sola Scriptura Not McCraney's Alma Mater

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.