What Do Anti-Mormons Read to Lose Braincells

I am a zombie. I have no original thoughts. My mind is filled only with LDS propaganda. I will tell lies if my faith is threatened.

OK, not really.

But I am regularly accused of such things. Just last Tuesday night my anti-Mormon friend Robert Verdin said he thought I probably lie to support my beliefs.

This after he acknowledged after 30 years of evangelizing the Mormons, he had never read the Book of Mormon. On Tuesday he acknowledged that he had not even bothered to look at, let alone read, the 40+ pages I provided him in support of the Book of Abraham, responding directly to attacks he had made.

He is sure the Book of Abraham is false, he said, because Joseph Smith was such a bad guy, it could not possibly be true.

I suppose they said the same things about Elisha after the she-bears tore dozens of children to shreds in the Bible. I am pretty sure personal habits are not reflective of truth claims of a prophet's mission.

But let's exam a couple of claims Anti-Mormons make which require one to actually ignore facts.

Bill McKeever calls me a deceiver because I point out that he ignores the eyewitness accounts concerning the nature of the Gold Plates and their weight. All the witnesses said they weighed 40-60 pounds. Additionally we have statements by his wife, family members and other observers who handled and carried the plates. These included his young sisters, neighbors and friends carrying the plates. This is in addition to the 8 witnesses who testified of the plates dozens of times. Martin Harris held them for over an hour on his lap; Joseph's brother William Smith said they weighed 40-60 pounds, and Joseph is quoted as saying they weighed 40-60 pounds. William Smith also said they were composed of copper and gold. Gold was their color, not their assayed composition. An 8 karat gold ring is a gold alloy and also the color "gold". We know that there is an alloy, Tumbaga, made of Gold and Copper, found in Central America, which is a perfect candidate for the material the Gold Plates were made from.

How much does Bill say they weighed? Somewhere between 100-240 pounds. And his source?

He has none. He has calculated this, or he accepts other people's calculations. But when I point that out, he says I am a deceiver! That makes sense.

Robert Verdin says the figures in Facsimile #1 of the Book of Abraham, showing a man holding a knife attempting to kill the man on the lion couch, is proof, says Robert, that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Why? Because some Egyptologists have asserted that it should be a picture of a man with a jackal's head with a bird flying over him.

The problem: There are three witnesses who saw the original scroll from which facsimile #1 is made, one of which was a non-LDS minister and critic, who noted there was a man holding a knife. And further, Kerry Shirts has provided references to similar looking artifacts.

As noted above, Robert's response is to refuse to read the material, and instead asserted that NO LDS SCHOLAR CAN BE TRUSTED! Even the other non-LDS folks sitting at the table protested how indefensible such a statement is.

Lastly, I spent three hours talking with a youth group two weeks ago, and two of their pastors. We spent more than two hours discussing the winter 1830 mission to Canada by Oliver Cowdery and Hiram Page, and two additional companions, to sell the copyright of the Book of Mormon. You can read the entire story here. Suffice it to say at the time we both did not understand the issues involved. They argued Joseph Smith was a false prophet based on David Whitmer's erroneous account, and I acknowledged that they were correct, based on Whitmer's account. But I said I did not think it was the correct story. That was true. Sadly, we wasted most of our time discussing something which was false, instead of the Gospel. The sad part is they think they know what Mormonism believes. They don't. They know a distortion provided them by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

I discovered today that Rob Sivulka, someone whom I have never thought was much of a scholar because of his sloppy research, now has the Canadian mission on his website as one of the "false prophecies" of Joseph Smith. Oh that he would someday do a little of his own research before he launched on the Mormons. Those actually involved in the Mission believed the revelation received by Joseph Smith was actually correctly fulfilled.

So do Anti-Mormons actually lose brain cells? Of course not. But they do tend to be unbelievably hypocritical in their attacks on LDS gullibility when they typically have their laundry list of false issues they preach. Gullibility is not a disease related to California Seagulls eating Utah Crickets.

Earning Condemnation

All mankind is fallen. This is a tenet of every Christian religion or denomination of which I am familiar. But the Bible also teaches that through Jesus Christ, all mankind has been made right with God.

When I tell people this, especially non-LDS, they want to argue the point. Because I would rather discuss than argue, I just turn to the scriptures, and let them defend me:

Yes, Adam's one sin brought condemnation upon everyone, but Christ's one act of righteousness makes all people right in God's sight and gives them life.(Romans 5:18, NLT)

This would seem to present a significant problem for folks who believe God doesn't really want to save ALL of his children. Don't misunderstand me, Paul is developing a masterful doctrine of LDS salvation between Romans 1 to Romans 8. Being made right, or justified (as many translations render it) is not of permanent duration, and so Romans 6 teaches that even those who believe in Christ will be condemned if they do not obey Christ.

But that is the rub. How can one "obey" anything, if, as many supposed "Christians" teach, God has set in people, without their choosing, hearts which are totally depraved of righteous desires to follow Christ?

In the Old Testament, God teaches that there is a statute for dealing with accidentally killing someone. It is called "manslaughter", and one who accidentally kills another, that is with no intent of doing harm, cannot be held to the usual penalty, which is death. See Numbers 35:9-34.

God absolutely hates scales or balances which are uneven. (Proverbs 11:1, 16:11, 20:23)

If only God can put a desire or will into a person to exercise faith, to call on Christ for salvation, then it is impossible for him to condemn to death those who lack that desire. To folks who believe "free will" does not really exist in the sense of being truly free to accept or reject the message of Christ, I am struck by the message of Romans. Christ has already set everyone free.

How long we retain freedom is entirely dependent upon our personal wills being turned to God and faith in Christ. And that is a choice.

"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." (Genesis 3:22)

I would welcome someone showing me where this ability to discern Good and Evil was repealed. If such a passage of scripture is not forthcoming, then I must conclude that we each earn our own condemnation, and therefore all of us also have the ability to appeal to Christ and exercise faith unto salvation through the Grace of Jesus Christ. The twisted reading of scripture leading one to conclude we live in total depravity is the work of men, and not God.

Unless, of course, uneven balances are no longer the abomination they once were to God. But that would make him a changeable God, and creates a whole bunch of problems in and of itself.

What is an "Anti-Mormon"

Is using the term "Anti-Mormon" prejudicial and loaded in attaching negative connotations to a conversation?

No.

It simply explains the activity of the person involved. If someone were truly "Pro-Christ" and loved those involved with Mormonism, they would have the courage of convictions to preach what they believe, and their "Anti-Mormonism" would virtually disappear. They may say something like "We believe temples have been replaced by Christ and the Holy Spirit." They may then say such a relationship to Christ and the Holy Spirit is all that is necessary for salvation. Notice how it is unnecessary to mention LDS beliefs about the temple if they tell you about their beliefs about the temple.

Where is the line that crosses over from "Pro-Christian" to "Anti-Mormon"? Is there anyone reading this who really wonders? When invectives are used to characterize the adherents and especially the leaders of any faith as conspiratorial, deceptive and acting in bad faith, or if false recountings of history are told to provide shock value, or especially if one is paid to tell people about how terrible another faith is, they are clearly an "anti-X". So when you read the comments from Aaron from two posts ago where he acknowledges his sole purpose in engaging me was to waste my time to prevent my interaction with others, and he does so under the guise of being interested in the LDS doctrines, he confirms he is not about preaching what he believes in but working against people of other faiths, in this case he is an "Anti-Mormon".

It seems to me Aaron should be significantly less sensitive about being called an "Anti-Mormon" since he writes that is exactly what he DOES. Let's walk through the logic briefly. Did Aaron speak with me because I was seeking him out to attack his faith? No. Did we even discuss my beliefs concerning his faith? No

Did Aaron use this tactic on anyone among the "Christian" apologists? Ask him, but I doubt it. So this is a special tactic he has reserved for me as a Mormon apologist.

This is what puts the lie to the oft repeated statements "We hate Mormonism, but we love the Mormon people."

I am Mormon. This was an act deliberately designed to interfere with me without regard to my feelings or welfare. It was something he did intentionally. His interest was a lie, and he did it strictly to stop a "Mormon".

That creates several issues here:

It affirms Aaron is an Anti-Mormon. If he doesn't like the title, maybe he should consider acting in other ways. Along with his buddy Mr. Bill, who literally SCREAMS at me that I am a deceiver because I challenge the false representations he makes about the Gold Plates (honestly, it is too funny to watch as he explains why we should accept his calculated values for the weight of the Gold Plates instead of the statements by witnesses, including a reliable second hand account from Joseph Smith.), I must say that I don't really feel, see or experience that swelling tide of love for the Mormon people.

Now if they want to preach what they believe will save people, then more power to them. But their main point in teaching is to create doubt in the youth or others whom they think they can shock with descriptions of LDS history, doctrine or practice.

Aaron's attempt to restrict the use of the phrase "Anti-Mormon" on his own website is sort of an "Alice in Wonderland" approach to not calling things as they really are.

Lastly, I believe the Anti-Mormons provide wonderful examples for the members and investigators of Mormonism. So I like them out there, because in defending my faith their attacks always work to the Church's benefit. As the Church's efforts to promote transparency of LDS history and doctrine continue to be manifested in things such as the "Joseph Smith Papers Project" and more engaging of the Church's critics by informed members, the excesses of Anti-Mormons, and their deceitful tactics, make the contrast between being "Pro-Mormon" and "Anti-Mormons" all the clearer. If they could win in the arena of defending their ideas and philosophies, they would logically want to take that approach. But they don't. Keep telling people the plates weighed 100-120 pounds. Ignore the historical first hand accounts of 40-60 pounds. And then let's let people decide who is grasping at straws, and who is providing accurate history.

Just remember, if Anti-Mormons attempt to disrupt my personal activities as they did in Manti when I am neither an official spokesman for the LDS Church or any other organization, they are firmly in "Anti-Mormon" territory. I am a Mormon, and Aaron was Anti-Bob practicing and defending his Mormon beliefs. I am not an "institution". I am Pro-Mormon.

It doesn't get much clearer.

Peace.

Respecting People and their Faith

Did Jesus or Paul ever attack someone who held a different faith?

No! Not just "NO", emphatically "NO".

Jesus cut loose on hypocrites of his own faith, Judaism. He never says, "Oh you apostate Samaritans, you're going to Heck." Or, "You Romans are messed up." No. And neither did Paul.

In fact, Paul lived 3 years in Ephesus, where the goddess Diana was revered. After 3 years, Paul had converted thousands, and the silversmiths were losing a fortune. So they whip up a posse to go kill him and his companions, and take him to city hall. The town clerk, realizing he has a riot on his hands, calms the crowd by reminding him they are neither "robbers of Churches, nor yet blasphemers", and if they have evidence or witnesses, they need to bring them forward. No one steps up, and the crowd is dismissed. (See Acts 19:21-41)

Think about it: After 3 years, no one among a rioting crowd could step forward to accuse Paul of preaching AGAINST Diana. NONE. Even though the silversmiths claimed to each other that Paul taught idols were not gods, which would have been blasphemy and treason if had Paul done so (Acts 19:26), the mayor notes it is not the case, and there are no witnesses.

Last time I checked the anti-Mormon sites, they were reminding everyone that Mormons are not Christians. We have a different Jesus. We worship a false god.

WWJD? What would Paul do? Well, we know what they wouldn't do.

So I guess we have another way, besides personal revelation, to know which preachers are corrupt. We can just watch and know that no missionary makes attacking another faith the focus of their ministry.

See Acts 5:42, 17:3; 1 Cor 1:17, 23; 2 Cor 4:5; Eph. 3:8; Phil 1:18; Col 1:27-28; 1 Pet 3:15.

Or I guess we could just ignore the Great Commission, and instead of teaching people to observe the things Christ taught, we could teach against every other faith.

Call us silly, but we Mormons are going to go with the Biblical model of preaching.

Peace.

4th Annual Hug Your Anti In Manti

My wife thinks I am nuts. I am back in Manti.

OK, so I went Thursday and was the first target a fellow from Idaho Falls witnessed to. I suspect that is sort of like picking Darth Vader to test out your new light saber you found at the bottom of a power shaft. He seemed a little unnerved, but I was nice. Anyway, after raining on his party, I politely excused myself, and walked off.

I found Aaron Shafovaloff standing in the street, and he was wrapping up speaking with a couple of folks, so I kind of small talked with him. Then he started asking if I believed I worked or merited salvation. Despite trying a dozen different ways explaining that while I believe Jesus is the Savior of those who obey him (Hebrews 5:9), and therefore by implication is NOT the Savior of those who disobey him, our reason for obedience is love, not "earning" salvation, since it is impossible to earn or work our own salvation. He said many Mormons have said we must work to obtain exaltation and therefore we merit salvation. I kept telling him depending upon the context of the statements, people may say that, but if you put the question to them whether they could become perfect without Christ, no LDS with even half a conscious brain in Church could come away thinking they don't need him. I reminded him that President Kimball said no one, no matter how good, could be saved without the atonement of Christ, and that no matter how powerful the atonement of Christ, no one can be saved without doing their part. It is the very nature of a covenant that it is a promise between two parties.

Aaron kept saying that meant I did believe my works merited or earned salvation, and I said "I am just going to stand on Hebrews 5:9, with the Biblical Christians, and that speaks for itself." Aaron's style is to shoot questions at you rapid fire, let you answer a little bit, quickly restate your position into his words turning it into whatever he sees as non-Christian, and then trying to make you see why your statement is false. He was very rude, talking over me, raising his voice, and repeatedly engaging in sarcasm, even though I treated the conversation seriously throughout. A companion of his standing nearby repeatedly tapped Aaron on the shoulder signaling to lower his voice and calm down, and I finally said I needed to move on, to which he replied "I accomplished my goal, I kept you from talking to others." I told him insincere conversation was sinful, and he needed to repent, and I walked away.

A few minutes later he caught up to me, and wanted to say he was over the top and wished me well, and I told him I didn't particularly care, it was obvious he did not really care what the LDS Church or members believe. He said he treated me differently because I am "an arm chair apologist". I told him there is no excuse, and kept walking.

The second night, unbelievably, Bill McKeever had his little wagon again from last year, but this year he had stacks of weights. When he saw me, he challenged me to grab fifty pound of weights and better be able to out run him. One of the kids standing by, a lanky tall teenager all of 140 pounds or so grabbed the weights and casually started walking off. Bill said "Come back", but the kid kept walking, then started running towards the food court. It was funny because Bill had to run after him, but the skinny kid just got tired and had to put the weights down, otherwise a big kid might have made him go quite a distance.

So I of course told the folks to keep asking him how much the witnesses who lifted the plates said they weighed. Since the witnesses said 40-60 pounds, and Bill tells people over 100 lbs, he gets really mad at being exposed as distorting the historical record. Bill yelled, very loudly, about how deceptive I was, and an anti-Mormon fellow whom I have seen before, but who refused to tell me his name, walked over and said "You just have a spirit of contention about you." So I told him I understood Jude in the Bible told us to contend for the Faith, and I wondered if he had decided that portion of the Bible was unimportant, because I found my behavior consistent with scripture, since I don't yell at people or call them names, but just respond with facts and scriptures. He said he had had a stroke in February (I think), and he was here because we needed the truth, and he reiterated how I was just contentious. I told him I was fine with that, that since he did not believe in the full teachings of the Bible, I was comfortable I had the truth, and, as I do with all the "faith only" Evangelicals, I asked him who was it that Jesus was Savior for, those who believed or obey? He said believe, and I asked him why he did not believe the teachings of the Bible, and again gave the Hebrews 5:8-9 reference, and quoted it to him, adding that I found it pretty much indefensible on his part to attack the Mormons as false when he rejected the express teachings of scripture. He got so made, he literally almost started to spit as he spoke. I asked him what happened to that calm, judgmental demeanor he just had, and how I found it funny that because he is losing the debate, he becomes angry. He walked off, and later he walked up to me as I was speaking with Bob Verdin while he was speaking with two teenage LDS boys, and this man told me I was just a trouble maker and should leave. I laughed, and Bob Verdin said "It's alright, he is my friend."

Last story for today. I was standing talking with some of the 34 women and girls who dressed up as Joseph Smith's wives, and asking them who among them had had children other than Emma, and just sort of pursuing the conversation with them, when this short fellow walks up to my right hand side and starts mumbling something. I ignored him initially, and then asked him if he was praying for me. He said he was, and then he proceeded to stalk me for about an hour, everywhere I went. He finally left when he bore his testimony to me that I did not have the Melchizedek priesthood. I told him as far as I could determine, there are only two "true" priesthoods named in the Bible, the Melchizedek and the Aaronic/Levitical. I asked him which priesthood Peter had in mind in 1 Peter 2:5, 9 and Revelation 1:6, 5:10, 20:6? Did he believe a non-Levite could be a Levitical priest, and if not, did that not leave just a single choice? Anyway, after praying for me for a while, he left.

As I walked away that evening, Bill McKeever was with a group of folks and I said something to them which I don't remember, but Mr. Bill started yelling what a deceiver I was, and I respond by pointing out how it surprised me how angry a good Christian like Mr. Bill was, who claimed to love the Mormons and have a heart for the truth. Mr. Bill just kept yelling what a deceiver I was, so I just said "God bless you", and walked away.

"the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center."(1 Nephi 16:2). Especially when they know they are distorting LDS doctrine and history, has been my experience.

More later.

3rd Annual Meet an Anti in Manti

I was in Manti last night to see the doings. A few things were immediately noticeable:
1. The LDS crowd was pretty small. It may have been a normal size crowd for a Thursday, but there were 5,000 or less folks there, based on the large number of empty chairs.
2. The anti's are about as they always are: Not all that informed.
2.A. I saw Aaron S., the fanatically reformed faith "missionary" who advocates God as the ultimate narcissist, and his attack on people in the LDS Church who speculate God may have been a man who actually sinned when he was a man is laughable. As anyone knows who actually, carefully reads the King Follett Discourse, which is the only document we have by a president of the Church supposedly under inspiration (I say supposedly not because I doubt it is inspired, but because it is not accepted as scripture, so the degree of inspiration is what is in question.), Joseph says the Father lived on a planet and lived a sinless life which Jesus Christ modeled his own life after.

"The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power-to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious-in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. " Joseph Smith, TotPJS

Seems pretty clear to me.

My favorite Aaron S. line was the following: "God is so great, even he cannot praise himself more than he is deserving to be praised." Well, at least we have established there are things even the Reformed God cannot do. I love this line of reasoning. It completely ignores that god cannot force our obedience.

2b. I was trying to get Aaron S. to respond to Rev. 1:6's statement in the King James Version which reads: Jesus has "made us kings and priests unto god and his father." So does god have a Father? According to this verse he does. So while I am trying to get Aaron S. to respond, a woman walks up to me and says "I can answer that question for you." I said great. As we discussed it she informed me she knew grammar, and that the God was actually Jesus, and the Father was the Father. She then tried to prove the Book of Mormon teaches a trinitarian god, and a young LDS girl, probably about 14, walked up and listened, and started to ask a question, and the woman told her not to interrupt. So after she cited Alma 11, and 3 Nephi 20:35, I said, "if your point is the Book of Mormon is promoting a trinitarian doctrine, then it could not possibly contain the doctrine of exaltation of men to become like God, right?" She said "Yes". I said, "let's read 3 Nephi 28:10: And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;"
She said that had nothing to do with exaltation or being like God, and so we read the next verse:
"11 And the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and the Father giveth the Holy Ghost unto the children of men, because of me." "Clearly the conversation is about the godhead, since all three persons of the Godhead are discussed right there, even if you don't want to comprehend the English words of verse 10." The lady got a twisted look on her face, then snapped at the young LDS girl, "I don't like your attitude." The girl said, "I didn't even say anything." The woman replied "It's rude for you to smile just because you think he's proved his point." At that point the LDS laughed, and I had the honor of Bill McKeever walking up to me.
3. Not all anti's are created equally. McKeever walked up and said I was a deceitful, deceiving person, and was there just to confuse people. Of course, his mean spiritedness was such that I grabbed my camcorder and told him to please repeat himself so I could get it on film. Pretty funny. The best discussion which anti's try to use all the time is citing Moroni 10:32.

Here is how their reasoning goes:
If Jesus' grace is only sufficient if we are obedient and cast off sin, you don't really need grace, nor do you really have a chance to be saved. They say we, in effect, create our own grace.

Unfortunately, they conspicuously ignore verse 33:
"33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot."
Perfection in Christ is done through Grace, and the atonement of Christ. Which is precisely the message of 2 Nep 25:23
23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

The last point is when they attack the phrase "after all we can do". Anti's like to speak of this phrase as if it is a command that we must do everything, then grace saves us. It is the opposite. No matter how much we do, it will never be enough, so we must be reconciled to God and have faith in Christ to be saved, which is by grace. We did not earn it.

More after tonight's pageant.

It Doesn't Matter at Heart

Bob, but I don't care what your points are. And I don't read them to prove my indifference.
(Shawn McCraney, email from Nov 6, 2006 after publicly requesting I send him info on the meaning of the Greek word 'proskuneo'.)

This is perhaps the clearest statement I've ever seen of the true values of an anti-Mormon when it comes to getting the story right. Publicly he spoke of wanting to get the story correct. He wrote his response before I emailed him, then responded privately as above.

When will people learn that folks who make their living attacking other people's faith have no interest in getting it right? They want to reinforce what people think they already "know", and develop a following to sell merchandise and collect love offerings. Shawn's web site has announced the creation of a 501(c)3 for their "ministry". The sole purpose for this designation is to treat contributions as charitable gifts for the purpose of encouraging donations and reducing tax consequences.

We know he doesn't do it because he loves to learn.

Ain't Got a Heart in Real Matters

What should one conclude from a person who yells the Mormons tell lies, but when confronted with evidence his own statements about LDS doctrine are inaccurate, runs and hides? Here is how the email exchange with Shawn McCraney, host of Heart of the Matter, finished up. Since he has responded by using one-word answers, it clearly isn't that he lacks time to respond. It is something else. Whatever that something else is, it apparently justifies in his mind ignoring his own promises to interact with LDS theological positions. This is how Mormoninfo.org, Josephlied.com, Witforjesus.org, Aaron Schafovaloff and Onelivingtruth.com have likewise ended. I am not trying to brag, I just want to point out that when challenged to provide sources, especially from scripture, to defend their positions, most conversations stop like a tank in mud. Shawn is no different, but that should tell those folks wondering about the LDS position's viability when put head-to-head with anti-Mormon "experts".

_________________________________

From: shawn@bornagainmormon.com
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 2:15 PM
To: RV
Subject: Re: Tuesday's Show Oct 24, 2006

redundant


_________________________________
From: RV Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 05:37 PM To: shawn@bornagainmormon.com
Subject: RE: Tuesday's Show Oct 24, 2006

Aw, schucks. Yep, your super intellect and insight has won me over. When can I join your cult? Those are great answers. Very Christian. I want to be just like you, if this is the converted, improved version which brought your daughter to tears on the show.

I can't imagine what you were like before you found religion.

Bob

_______________________________
From: shawn@bornagainmormon.com
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:39 PM
To: RV
Subject: Re: Tuesday's Show Oct 24, 2006

Stop.

________________________________
From: RV
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:22 PM
To: shawn@bornagainmormon.com
Subject: RE: Tuesday's Show Oct 24, 2006

Engage the issues as you challenge and insist you will. You're the one who came at the Mormons, who call our leaders liars, our testimonies false, our conversions mostly a delusion. I provided a factual, document based response to your false teachings about the Mormons, and you don't have the courtesy to respond in any cogent manner, despite your web page and even your email auto-respond saying you will.

If you are in fact saying "stop" because you will not answer, I will make sure that message gets out. I think it speaks volumes about your "expertise".

If you mean stop because I mention your manipulation of your daughter on television, then I would suggest you not pull your beautiful children into a forum and ask them questions designed to evoke an emotional response.

Since you refused to answer from the first email I sent, I am just curious if you evade all substantive questioning? Where can I find responses to my questions if you don't actually mean you will answer questions emailed to you? Why do you challenge people to respond to the "truths" when you do not actually interact with honest presentations of facts? All of these questions go to the heart of the matter of your actual motives. You can be whatever you want, but don't pretend to be a champion of truth if you refuse to interact with official LDS doctrine in favor of sensationalized opinions.

There is a pithy answer to this:

Integrity.

Peace,
Bob

_________________________________
The response since then is just his auto-response, which as the previous emails all show, is not true:

__________________________________
From: shawn@bornagainmormon.com
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 11:22 PM
To: RV
Subject: From your friends at Born-Again Mormon

Thank you for writing. I will try my best to answer your email but due to the amount of emails we receive, it may take upwards of four or five days. Please know your comments do matter to us and we will address them as soon as time permits. [Emphasis added to a statement which is false.]

In Christ Jesus,
Shawn McCraney
Born-Again Mormon Ministries

Born Again without a Desire for Truth

Many people are uninformed about LDS doctrine, including, or maybe especially, ex-Mormons who cite their membership for their authority in matters of doctrine. Don't let their ignorance of actual doctrine deter their zeal to attack their former faith.

I sent an email last night to the owner of Born Again Mormon detailing two serious doctrinal errors he was discussing on his show, Heart of the Matter. I took about 3 hours to gather authoritative quotes, review doctrinal statements and provide them in an orderly and un-insulting manner. I post the entire exchange below, so that you can see the response. Once again, if by their works we shall know the true disciples of Christ, I am glad to live among the Mormons.

I love these responses. They show what truth really means to people. Shawn's comments are particularly funny because his web site invites a thorough discussion of LDS doctrine. You can see what his definition of that is below. By the way, much of the content about the nature of the birth of Jesus I quoted is available at this blog in an earlier posting. There is a fellow obscessed with the subject to whom I responded, and who, I will add, now avoids discussing the issue when I am around. Funny how truth throws water on peoples attack fire. So for complete details, please see below.

Keep the faith.

_________________________
Email 1

From: RV
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006
To: shawn@bornagainmormon.com,
Subject: Tuesday's Show Oct 24, 2006

Your information about the LDS views of the birth of Christ is wrong. I can prove it, I prove it constantly when anti-Mormons bring it up, I have it posted on a website and I have a little brochure on the subject which I personally researched from scratch. The fact you quote statements such as Orson Pratt's to represent LDS doctrine is very disappointing when you so loudly beat your chest on the show about LDS not knowing their own doctrine.

Go to http://www.promormon.blogspot.com/ if you want to get a doctrinally accurate review of the subject. Or just keep doing what you are doing. Maybe someday I can get through onto the air.

One of the funniest lines ever said to me by an anti-Mormon was "Just because you know the scriptures better than me, doesn't mean you are right!" I felt that way watching you brow beat the lady that called in to try to present an LDS perspective. Most LDS do not study their scriptures with an eye toward defending their faith. They read for spiritual food. They don't read to prove anyone else wrong, so most are at a significant disadvantage when they encounter people crusading to crush their faith. And then the person attacking their faith feels superior because their victim cannot quickly respond. That woman did not call in to pick a fight, but to try to help explain the LDS position. How long would you have left her on had she responded to every one of your attacks with Biblical passages?

By the way, bring the "Adam Fell Upward" statements. Let's make sure we read the entire context. Since this world is equivalent to the Telestial Kingdom, and Adam fell from the equivalent of the Terrestial Kingdom, this will be interesting to see you make the case that Mormons believe this life is a better existence than where Adam and Eve left. Yes, we exist. No, this is not a nicer place. Context matters, which you seem to generally ignore in LDS beliefs. Ironically, there is far, far less consistency of beliefs in "the Body of Christ" as you define it, yet you unfairly ignore those differences. The ridcu [sic]

N.L. Nelson, Improvement Era, May, 1922:"...we should realize without the need of scriptural assurance, the fact that Adam fell, that we are all fallen. No fact could possibly be more emphatic than this. Let us next proceed to examine this "fall" in terms of the essential attributes of matter. Summed up we shall find that it means a kind of imprisonment; and that salvation means fighting our way outward and upward to freedom."

Hyrum L. Andrus, Doctrinal Commentary on the pearl of Great Price, page 266-7 "Second, he [Adam] fell from that glorious state and thereby suffered a spiritual death-a withdrawal of the divine powers of God's glory from himself and the earth.

Moses 6:48 48 And he said unto them: Because that Adam fell, we are; and by his fall came death; and we are made partakers of misery and woe.

Elder Russell M. Nelson, Constancy amid Change, Ensign (CR), November 1993, p.33 While I do not fully understand all the biochemistry involved, I do know that their physical bodies did change; blood began to circulate in their bodies. Adam and Eve thereby became mortal. Happily for us, they could also beget children and fulfill the purposes for which the world was created. Happily for them, “the Lord said unto Adam [and Eve26]: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden” (Moses 6:53). We and all mankind are forever blessed because of Eve’s great courage and wisdom. By partaking of the fruit first, she did what needed to be done. Adam was wise enough to do likewise. Accordingly, we could speak of the fall of Adam in terms of a mortal creation, because “Adam fell that men might be” (2 Ne. 2:25).27

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “The Great Plan of Happiness”, Ensign (CR), November 1993, p.72 It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same. And thus Eve and “Adam fell that men might be” (2 Ne. 2:25).

Elder Orson F. Whitney., Conference Report, April 1908, Outdoor Meeting., p.87 By the transgression of our first parents, the human race fell into a pit, and there was no help, and no hope, this side of heaven, for the race could not redeem itself. Man cannot be honest enough, nor virtuous enough, nor truthful enough, nor benevolent enough, to save his soul. That is why the Gospel was provided, as a means of salvation, and it had to come from above. No part of that which was under condemnation could be used as the means of redemption. Adam and Eve, with their posterity, were under the curse, and it was the curse of eternal death,-death spiritual, death temporal,-never-ending banishment from the presence of God.But the Son of God came down from the Courts of Glory, and offered Himself as a sacrifice, a ransom. He was not under the curse; He had not fallen; and His life could pay the debt. It could be used as the means of the world's redemption; and it was so used, and thus He became the Author of life and salvation to us all. He was the first fruits of the resurrection, and He declared: "Because I live, ye shall live also."He let down the ladder into the pit, and bade those who desired salvation at His hands, to climb. They were not to plead their own merits, nor rely upon their own strength, but were to use their powers in climbing up by the way that He had provided. The first round of the Gospel ladder is faith in God; the second round is repentance from sin; the third round, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and the fourth round, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The Fall was not an improvement for Adam and Eve; it was a necessary step which was a transgression. They were ordered to reproduce, yet did not. There was time to disobey the "Don't eat the Fruit" commandment, which logically means they must have also had time to fulfill the other commandment, yet could not. So they had to figure out how to keep the greater commandment. It brought about mankind's existence. The proof is Gen. 4:1; Adam knew his wife Eve, and conceived Cain. This is literally their first act after being cast out of the Garden. Are you aware of the symbolism of the fig apron? If they are in the Garden for who knows how long, you are going to call it a coincidence they are given fig aprons and are immediately pregnant? They were naked in the Garden, and reproduction did not occur to them. It required them to become as the gods, knowing good and evil, to be able to reproduce.

Bring on your strong reasons. Your whole assault on the LDS Fall tonight was pretty unfair.

Peace,
BV

___________________
Email 2

From: shawn@bornagainmormon.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006
To: BV Subject:
Re: Tuesday's Show Oct 24, 2006

Spin.

_____________________
Email 3

From: RV
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006
To: shawn@bornagainmormon.com,
Subject: Tuesday's Show Oct 24, 2006

Oh that all complex issues could be solved with a word. I will make sure this response is added to my blog. Truly classic.

Bob

_____________________
Email 4

From: shawn@bornagainmormon.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:14 AM
To: RV
Subject: Re: Tuesday's Show Oct 24, 2006


They can, Bob. The word is Jesus.

_____________________
Email 5

From: RV
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 09:11 AM
To: shawn@bornagainmormon.com
Subject: RE: Tuesday's Show Oct 24, 2006


Pithy, just false.

Like the things you taught last night on the LDS doctrine of the Virgin Birth and the Fall of Adam.

Peter, Paul, James, John and even Jesus must have all missed your memo. Be prepared to give an answer to every man, but in humility and respect. 1.1 million words in the Bible apparently missed the memo too.

False doctrine is to be resisted. The Bereans were blessed for being more studious of the scriptures in reviewing Paul's teachings. In effect, you are saying you should be held to a lower standard of truth than Paul was in his day. I don't care about being right, I care about truth. I have even admitted to my anti-Mormon friends when I have made a mistake. I thought if you really believe truth matters, you would at least be open to examining you may be in error. However, nothing is harder to open than a closed mind, which explains a lot about your apostacy from the LDS Church. I would leave the Church too if I believed all the false things about the Church you insist we do. Your concept of baptism, salvation, the Godhead and the Virgin Birth are all in error, so I understand why you were never converted.

I have dealt with hundreds of addicts over the years, and nothing is scarier than stripping away falsehood and looking honestly. I am not saying you are an addict, but I am saying you live in a world where the falsehoods you preach seem to be feeding your zeal. You have a zeal, it is just not after knowledge, which is what I was trying to say. Your scholarship on baptism and God as a spirit are particularly poor, and the only reason you could take those kinds of positions is if you really don't care about reading the Bible with understanding. Any current Greek grammar would nullify your position, yet I heard you again repeat the false statement that John 4:24 says god is a spirit. It doesn't. It's a mistranslation (which you asked the LDS lady for an example last night) which NO modern translation supports, even those based on the King James Bible's Greek text. So why do you keep citing it? A skeptic of your motives might think it is because it is in the King James Bible which Mormons use, and they would not know to appeal to a correct translation. I don't know your real reason. But truth cannot live with deceit.

Does truth matter?

Bob

_________________________
Email 6

From: shawn@bornagainmormon.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 9:57 PM
To: RV
Subject: Re: Tuesday's Show Oct 24, 2006


Boring.

________________________
Email 7

From: RV
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:27 AM
To: shawn@bornagainmormon.com
Subject: RE: Tuesday's Show Oct 24, 2006

Facts may be boring, but pithy, factless responses are both useless and hypocritical coming from the man stating as his mission: "We ... seek to confront and help remove any doctrines which demand anything more than faith in Jesus Christ for salvation."

I guess that doesn't apply when your assertions are demonstrably false. It is boring when self-appointed experts repeatedly misrepresent LDS doctrine. I much prefer missionary work to apologetics. The Lord commanded Joseph Smith in D&C 71 to confront the enemies of the Church who mislead non-LDS. The revelation concerned an apostate member who published a mix of truth and falsehood. Sound familiar?

Enjoy your pithy party.

Bob

Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.

Confronting Confrontationalists

Confrontational Evangelism is the non-Biblical prideful justification for being a graceless goof.

You can see it in the street preachers fellowship, Rob Sivulka and many other people "with a burden to preach the Gospel" as rudely as possible.

Rob Sivulka, for example, has a video where he justifies his 'Gospel-free' technique of offending as many LDS people as possible. During the course of the video, he makes two particularly insightful comments which are totally lost on himself. He reads verses in Matthew and Mark about Christ attacking the Pharisees. It is completely lost on Rob that the Pharisees were in the Church of the day, the Jewish faith tradition. Christ attacked them for their hypocrisy in not caring to follow the teachings they taught.

Rob, on the other hand, attacks people he believes are not within the faith, and who sincerely believe and practise their faith. There is not a single example of Christ verbally assaulting anyone sincerely seeking to follow the truth. The woman at the well. Thomas. Zachias. He supped with sinners and tax collectors. Do you really think he sat there screaming? Even the gentile mother seeking help for her child he gently tried to turn away, and then granted her the request of her petition.

Paul and Peter likewise spoke lovingly, respectfully to sincere non-Christians and Jews. There was only sharpness for hypocritical Jews and Christians, who should have known better. The mayor of Ephesus notes that Paul never blasphemed their pagan gods (Acts 19:37), something Rob chooses to violate with virtually every breath and website, if in fact he believes Mormons worship false gods.

Lastly, Rob quotes Cecil B. DeMille, the famous director, who noted that panzy preachers did not emulate Jesus. Demille, quoted by Rob, notes Christ only attacked hypocrits "who made a travesty of his father's temple". That means false sheep entering the Lord's house and profiting from it.

Mormons and LDS missionaries and leaders are explicitly not to create an ecumenical relationship with other faiths. Mormons don't join councils of Churches where issues of faith are compromised. We never enter a non-LDS church building or congregation under any false pretense, as if we are not working to convert them.

It is enlightening to hear Rob's stories of people who have come out of Mormonism. I have corresponded with several of those people. They are largely ignorant or bitter for social reasons.

I hope Rob keeps up the confrontational method. It makes the difference so clear, that only the weak-minded and uneducated fall for his lies. I know of examples when ex-Mormons learn the Truth, they return to the faith. Wouldn't it be cool if he posted those messages.

Rob has a long history of avoiding actual intellectual exchanges where something more than an "everybody knows" suffices for documentation. I believe he demonstrates a pyschological need to feel like a victim. He loves feeling persecuted. He notes he revels in having people yell as they drive by "get a job" or "shame on you". Another typical example of Rob's bankrupt reasoning. People in cars who comment, while Rob is usually yelling at Mormon passers-by, probably will not be heard using their chapel voices, will they? Now they should probably not say anything, but considering Rob confronts several hundred thousand LDS people each year, why is it surprising that newcomers to the faith may feel a need to respond. At least they did not follow Peter's example and try to cut off his ear. I have spoken with Rob numerous times, and he literally collapses under the weight of his false sources and poorly researched and poorly reasoned positions. I fear this sounds boastful, but it is also true. Ask him why he says Mormons won't literally interpret Acts 7:55-56? I have a great picture of him SCREAMING at the top of his lungs, calling me a liar, when confronted with actual false statements from his own web site.

Most Mormons don't get a background in Bible history, linguistics, or comparative religion. Mormons don't attack other faiths, and Rob counts on that ignorance. He noted that he would not continue discussing the LDS faith with me because I would eventually resort (because I never had) to comfort in my testimony, rather than arguing the facts. This from a guy who never once quoted an entire verse of scripture and explained its context. IN fact, up to a few years ago, on his entire website I counted only two or three verses of scripture quoted. He normally says something like "the Bible teaches (verse whatever)", never actually quoting the verse. Scripture and scholarship is poison to anti-Mormons. Arguing from the scriptures, Mormonism never can lose. Arguing from "everyone knows" allows falsehood to reign supreme.

To some, this may seem confrontational. It is intended to be analytical. Sometimes it takes more than a slogan to actually address falsehood, so please understand the need to provide supporting examples.

April 2006 Conference Review

There were many great speakers, but probably 3 anti-Mormon events I wish to touch on.
1. I spoke with a lot of "King James Only" adherents. In a word: Lost souls. They have been pumped full of bad facts and crippled logic. In effect, they believe that magically (no really!), the King James Translators made the perfect translation of scripture. All scripture. Nothing is left out, nothing to be added. No contradictions are in it either. So I provided them an absolutely unresolveable contradiction: 2 kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9. The King Jehoiachin is 18 years old when he becomes king in one version, 8 years old in the other. They are otherwise perfectly parallel accounts. It is obviously a scribal error in 2 Chronicles. No matter, one error is an error, and it means their doctrine is false. I have about 100 others, but it makes the point. (On a side note, one of the young people I spoke with actually said that the King James Bible should be translated into other languages, rather than the best Greek texts in use OR even the original texts used by the King James translators. Everyone scratch your heads.)

2. I had the chance to meet with a man who was truly mentally ill. Now, before too many jokes fly, in some ways we all are a little unique. In fact, I think based on the irrational indifference for the teachings of Christ by most street preachers, a case can be made a lot of those guys are suffering in some form of delirium. But this poor fellow was genuinely mentally ill, and just could not control his anger or aggitation. But for the grace of God, there go I. The cool thing, in my view, is that I suspect he falls into the same category in the after-life as little children who are unaccountable. He is just not able to help himself.

3. Just as I was leaving, I ran into Aaron and Stacia. Aaron is a likeable follower of reformed theology who fancies himself a missionary to Mormons. His beautiful wife is about 5 months pregnant with their first child. They had brought her parents down to see Temple Square, and they stopped to ask me some questions. Stacia's mom, whose name I cannot recall, was very nice, but she became progressively more animated and wound up just walking away because she felt I was telling her blasphemous doctrines out of the Bible. Here is the irony. They had asked me, after bouncing quickly along such topics as baptism for the dead, proper worship of God and Christ, the New Testament basis for Spirit Prison and Paradise, can salvation occur strictly through faith or is obedience necessary, and what role the Trinity has or has not in the New Testament; all in about 15 minutes, she then said "I understand your faith teaches that Christ and Satan are considered siblings of some kind". So I said yes, this is what the Bible teaches, but before we get into that, this will take longer than 1 minute to resolve, so are you willing to spend the time. She pressed that she wanted to know, and said she could not believe any such thing. I asked her if Jesus himself had a spirit. She replied that he had the Holy Spirit, which he shared with the Father and the Holy Ghost.

Here is where I made my mistake. I should have done this in a Socratic style, and simply pointed out scriptures and asked questions. I won't make this mistake ever again. But instead I told her that while Christ shared in the Holy Spirit, he had his own Spirit. She literally lost it at this point, telling me this was blasphemy and unscriptural and she was going to walk away. I told her it was in fact in the scriptures, and if she cared to see the verses, I would be happy to provide them. Having confounded Ron McRae the day before on this exact topic (he is the director of the Street Preachers Fellowship, the unChristian sign toting protest group), I was certain I could make the Biblical case. But I mis-judged how upset this nice lady would get at having some of her basic beliefs confronted by the truth of scripture. Big, prideful mistake on my part.

At this point she walked away. Her husband politely said thank you, shook my hand, and dutifully followed his wife, as I would have mine.

Here is the problem for her as a Trinitarian Christian. Her statements put her right in the category of defined heretic according to Traditional Christian theology. Her expression is a modified Modalist. The Father is the Son is the Holy Spirit. In this case, the Son is the Holy Spirit shared by the Father. Worse still, though she clearly had just recently read John 14, as she cited it several times, she professed to be unfamiliar with Christ's admonition that we must endure to the end to be saved (Matt 24:13; Mark 13:13). Every Gospel account indicates Christ has his own spirit, separate and apart from the Holy Spirit (Matt 3:16; 4:1; 12:18; 12:32; 27:50; Mark 1:10; 8:12; 15:37; Luke 3:22; Luke 4:1; 4:14; 4:18; 10:21; 12:10; 23:46; John 1:32; 1:33; 7:39; 11:33; 13:21; 14:26; 15:26; 19:30; Acts 4:8 shows the Apostles were indwelt with the Holy Spirit just as Christ was during His life.)

So, Stacia's Mom, you are just wrong. You were so sure you were right, and I was just up in the night. Hopefully you will someday be humble enough to let the missionaries walk you through the Gospel. There are answers to literally everything you asked, but I was stupid to think I could walk you through the scriptures in a public environment, and have the Spirit teach you while Aaron is doing drive-by insults of LDS doctrine. Again, I apologize, and I won't do that again.

Stacia's mom and dad both asked a question which I don't think they fully understand. They said "Can we be saved even if we never join the Mormon Church?" I told them it is really a non-issue, because we do the work for all people, so everyone will have the chance. But this is really the wrong answer. The right answer is much more sober: If this is the Church of Jesus Christ restored in our day, rejecting God's prophets, his ordinances and his inspired council, if such attitudes are taken into the next life, can only lead to something less than ultimate salvation. You cannot reject Isaiah, Moses or Peter, and say you believe in Jesus Christ. As it says in modern day revelation: "Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." (D&C 1:38) This is no different than what Moses said 3,000 years ago:

Deut 30:2
2 And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul;

Without an open mind, it is impossible to hear the Lord's voice.

See you around.

Someone Needs to Get Married I Think

Once again I was accused of being dishonest over the issue of whether God and Mary had sex.

First, I don't really care, one way or the other. Honestly, God can do no wrong, and since I believe Jesus was His only begotten son in the Flesh, the mechanics are irrelevant to me.

OK, that being said, the Church does not have an official position on the mechanics. Here is what Elder Harold B. Lee said in 1969. He was the 2nd most senior apostle after President McKay and President Smith. We have a very clear statement speaking directly upon this subject:

Teachers should not speculate on the manner of Christ's birth. We are very much
concerned that some of our Church teachers seem to be obsessed of the idea of
teaching doctrine which cannot be substantiated and making comments beyond what the Lord has actually said.
You asked about the birth of the Savior. Never have I talked about sexual intercourse between Deity and the mother of the Savior. If teachers were wise in speaking of this matter about which the Lord has said but very little, they would rest their discussion on this subject with merely the words which are recorded on this subject in Luke 1:34-35: "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
Remember that the being who was brought about by [Mary's] conception was a divine personage. We need not question His method to accomplish His purposes. Perhaps we would do well to remember the words of Isaiah 55:8-9: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."Let the Lord rest His case with this declaration and wait until He sees fit to tell us more. (1/2/69)

Seems pretty clear. One would think Harold B. Lee would know the official position of the LDS Church. He is clear in saying more specific statements than this are personal speculation on the part of the authors.

Talmage teaches thus:

That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the 'Son of the Highest.' We Believe That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof;
...Miracles are commonly regarded as occurrences in opposition to the laws of nature. Such a conception is plainly erroneous, for the laws of nature are
inviolable. However, as human understanding of these laws is at best but imperfect, events strictly in accordance with natural law may appear contrary thereto...
...True, the event was unprecedented; true also it has never been paralleled; but that the virgin birth would be unique was as truly essential to the fulfillment
of prophecy as that it should occur at all. That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the "Son of the Highest." ... (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ: A Study of the Messiah and His Mission According to Holy Scriptures Both Ancient and Modern, p.77.)

So you have Talmage calling the birth of Jesus a "Miracle" and "unprecedented", and beyond human understanding, and still I hear people say Talmage is saying God had sex with Mary. Please, there is nothing unprecedented, miraculous or unknown about how a child comes forth from sex. Moreover, he called her "Mary the Virgin" (page 87).

A brief study of the word "conceive". We find it in Luke 1:31: "to become pregnant; conceive." Mary is said to be conceiving in her womb. That is the normal place. Is there any implication of sex?

Last point: I have pointed this out previously. The Seer, published by Orson Pratt, was thoroughly denounced by the LDS leadership and Church, including Orson Pratt, as a work which should never be considered LDS. Here is what it says:

"But the Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star, of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 contains doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works or parts of works are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed." Signed the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, INCLUDING Orson Pratt, its author. Deseret News on the 23rd of August, 1865.

Only a person of extreme ill-will toward the LDS Church could attempt to use anything out of the Seer. And without co-publishing the Church's denunciation with it, one is left to wonder about the ethics of such a person or group thus involved.

Sixteen years after Harold B. Lee's comments, Bruce R. McConkie published his final book. He wrote the following in explaining the Virgin Birth:

"The mortal Jesus, as a man among men, had both a father and a mother. God was his Father, and Mary was his mother. He was begotten by a Holy Man, by that God whose name is Man of Holiness; and he was conceived in the womb of a mortal woman. Mary, a virgin of Nazareth in Galilee, was "the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh." (1 Nephi 11:18.) She was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost; "she was carried away in the Spirit" (1 Nephi 11:19); she conceived "by the power of the Holy Ghost," and she brought forth a son, "even the Son of God" (Alma 7:10). That Son, who is called Christ, is the Only Begotten, the only offspring of the Father born into mortality. As a man, as God's only Son, his only mortal Son, he overcame the world." Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, 1985, Deseret Book, Chapter 9, pg 74:

While Br. McConkie's explanation could still be interpreted as implying sex, it clearly does not REQUIRE that meaning. And frankly, Elder Harold B. Lee's statement still would be controlling, since he is limiting his statement to official doctrine, whereas Br. McConkie was publishing his opinion. General Authorities are allowed to have opinions, they just are not allowed to say they are official doctrine. Reading the inside cover of Elder McConkie's book will indicate what his writing was.

Enough for now. The LDS Church is true. I love these cute little diversions. Don't discuss the big things. Look at the churches who cannot decide if we are all predestined robots, if baptism is essential, if good works really matter, or if the doctrine of the Trinity could be any more flawed, but we spend time discussing the method of impregnating Mary. What a waste of time. The sad thing is that the person most concerned about this will argue regardless of what the official position of the Church is. This is the best he can do to show his perception of inconsistency, because he doesn't allow the LDS Church to define itself. He has a standard he has created, and since the Church does not conform to his criteria, he keeps chasing his tail. Let me issue this challenge: The official Church website at www.LDS.org. Find the doctrine that God had sex with Mary. You can find the Church's views on baptism, salvation, priesthood. If this is such a big deal, find it there. Then drop me a line. Otherwise, try and tackle something which is real next time.

Peace.

The Death

In discussing Paul, the question of what did Paul mean when he said in Acts 22:4 he had persecuted Christians to "the death". One opinion offered said it meant cutting off heads with swords or similar implements.

While that sounds good(?), not really accurate. According to BDAG, the 2000 3rd edition of "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament", commonly called BDAG, the Greek word is thanatos, and means "The termination of physical life, death", and then in citing the passage says of the phrase: "persecute even to death" (italics in the original).

So here are some other sources:


Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament
And I (oß). I who, literally. This Way (tauthn thn odon). The very term used for Christianity by Luke concerning Paul's persecution (Acts 9:2), which see. Here it "avoids any irritating name for the Christian body" (Furneaux) by using this Jewish terminology. Unto the death (acri qanatou). Unto death, actual death of many as Acts 26:10 shows. Both men and women (andraß te kai gunaikaß). Paul felt ashamed of this fact and it was undoubtedly in his mind when he pictured his former state as "a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious (1 Timothy 1:13), the first of sinners" (1 Timothy 1:15). But it showed the lengths to which Paul went in his zeal for Judaism.

This is what Acts 26:10 says: "This I actually did in Jerusalem, and I locked up many of the saints in prison, since I had received authority for that from the chief priests. When they were put to death, I cast my vote against them."
So he did not actually, physically kill them, but consented to their death.

I checked two other lexicons I have at home, and 3 online commentaries and the Crosswalk.com lexicon as well. Nobody seems to know about the word meaning anything except death. It is common English usage to say for example "they fought to the death".

I hope this clears this up.

Crybaby Evangelism

Forget Friendshipping. Forget confrontationalism. Go straight to Crybaby Evangelism (CBE). CBE is practised by an elite group of two or three Evangelical groups who are unable to see the fruits of their actions. Reading the newsletter of one self-absorbed "evangelist" (sic, gag), they become a power unto themselves and feed on the attention. As I have challenged various anti-Mormon or non-Mormons to defend their assertions against Mormonism, inevitably it eventually devolves into an attitude by the attackers of "Don't waste your time on him, he knows his facts." Every general conference, one of the CBE practitioner's will tell people not to speak with me because "he is just trying to waste your time." Since the last time I checked this CBE practitioner does not believe in receiving revelation, so he is simply falsely judging me. Yup, that is what this boils down to. Hypocrits who cannot deal with the truth.

So I will keep talking to all of the people who want to talk. But you folks in CBE land, keep it up. Every respectable and knowledgeable Christian missionary has figured out the CE and CBE does not work, and there is literally nothing as funny as reading or listening to their self serving justification for being un-Christian. "Everyone is mean and needs to leave me to my form of evangelism!" WAh, Wah, Wah.

This is funny. Hand them a pacifier. Of course, the word pacifier has it root in the word "peace", which was the message of the Savior. Which is why it is obvious whose team the CE and CBE evangelists are on.

Peace.

Is it Time to Declare Victory for the Mormons Yet?

I have been discussing TULIP with Leroy. We have been on T for Total Depravity of Man since we started in April. It has been since May 31 since Leroy responded. I hope he is well. I suspect, however, that he has moved on to less difficult venues. After all, Romans 5:18 and the other verses discussed proved Justification is given to all men. It is both explicit and directly to the discussion of "who is justified". Everyone is Justified by Christ, however only those who obey him will retain complete Justification once in heaven. Again, Hebrews 4:9 is likewise explicit and direct: "And being made perfect, [Jesus Christ] became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." Not exactly ambiguous.

So Leroy, if you want to push ahead, I am still here. I recently acquired several books by Mr. James White on Justification and salvation by faith alone. He doesn't address the verses in Romans, Genesis, Hebrews, 1 Timothy, John or elsewhere either. He falls back to "the entire context of scripture...must be considered." In other words, 'I can't explain why Paul writes these things which contradict my theory, but I can show you this other verse that works with my theory!'

Many is free. God is great. Godliness is the destiny of the obedient from among mankind. The Mormons have it correct.
Peace.

So "U" Believe in Tulip: Unconditional Grace Examined

Like most concepts, there is some truth in the concept of Unconditional Grace, but monergism distorts the concept by the severe application of pre-destination. Here is what Leroy says of Unconditional Election:

U: For the purposes of God, in accordance with His Holiness and perfection, and for reasons that His creations will not know on Earth, beginning before the foundation of the Earth, God the Father chose the sheep and elected them, without any regard to anything but His own glory and purposes, that they would be born again and gain the inheritance of Jesus in righteousness.U: Unconditional election and Unrelenting election and Undeniable election and Unsuperficial election

U: Gen. 18:17-19, Deut. 4:35-38, Deut. 7:6-8, Deut. 10:14-15, Deut. 14:2, Deut 18:4-5, 1 Chron. 28:4, Psa. 33:12, Psa. 78:67-71, Psa. 100:3, Psa. 135:4, Isa. 40:23, Isa. 41:8, Isa. 44:1-2, Isa. 45:4, Isa. 65:9, Jer. 1:5, Jer. 27:5, Jer 31:35-36, Matt. 11:27, Matt. 20:15, Matt. 22:14, Matt. 24:31, Mark 7:21-23, Mark 13:20, Luke 6:45, Luke 18:7, John 1:4-5, John 5:21, John 8:43-44, John 13:18, John 15:16, John 15:19, Acts 9:15, Acts 10:41, Acts 22:14, Rom. 7:5, Rom. 8:29, Rom. 8:33, Rom. 9:11, Rom. 9:13, Rom. 9:20, Rom. 11:5, Rom. 11:7, Rom. 11:24, Rom. 11:28, Rom. 13:1, Rom. 16:13, 1 Cor. 1:27, Gal 5:17, Eph. 1:4-6, Eph. 1:11, Eph. 2:8, 1 Thes. 1:4, 2 Thes. 2:13, 2 Tim. 1:9, Titus 1:1, James 2:5, 1 Peter 1:1-5, 1 Peter 1:20, 1 Peter 2:4-10, 2 Peter 1:10, 2 John 1:13

U: God said and knew and made who would be saved and who would go to hell before ‘time’ began. God chooses when, how, and why someone gets saved by His grace alone.

I find a couple of things interesting with this aspect of the doctrine of monergism. First, of all, most doctrines which require blind faith in a concept articulated by men are generally false. This is true of the doctrine of the Trinity, and it is true of the idea of 'unknowable' election by God. Repeatedly scripture teaches that salvation is declared and offered to all men, regardless of when they lived or who they are.

Paul himself declared that he had declared all mysteries (Romans 11:25, 16:25-26; 1 Cor 4:1, 13:2), but he is actually quite specific in explaining that salvation's mysteries have been revealed to the chosen (Eph 1:9), and that specifically the understanding of the doctrine of predestination or foreordination of the elect is now known. The word "mystery" means something which was hidden, but is now revealed. The idea of God pre-chosing the elect, and specifically having some elect versus some non-elect is about God choosing Israel as the vehicle of salvation
Romans 11:2-7:

2 God did not cast off his people which he foreknew. Or know ye not what the
scripture saith of Elijah? how he pleadeth with God against Israel: 3 Lord, they
have killed thy prophets, they have digged down thine altars; and I am left
alone, and they seek my life. 4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I
have left for myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal. 5
Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the
election of grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise
grace is no more grace. 7 What then? that which Israel seeketh for, that he
obtained not; but the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened:

The rest of us are grafted into the vine if we also believe (Romans 9:4,11,20-33, 10:1).

It is also interesting that there are two usual mistakes made by monergists in interpreting the Bible which leads to misapplying scriptural passages on election. First, they don't understand the historical background of the scriptures in Romans 9. Romans 9 is written by Paul to explain to the Jewish congregation how election applied to the non-Jewish members of the congregation. Specifically the description of the clay is a reference to Isaiah 45 and Jeremiah 18:6.
O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay [is] in the potter's hand, so [are] ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
This is as clear and direct a citation as one can find anywhere in scripture. The clay analogy is not about individuals, and God selecting specific individuals for salvation. It is about God selecting a channel, the children or nation of Israel, as the means for blessing the world with the promises and covenants he made to Abraham (Gen 17:5-8; 18:17-19).

Furthermore, the most commonly cited passages on God drawing only specific individuals to him, and indeed cited at monergism.com as proof of specific election, are verses John 6:37, 39, 44, 63-65. Again, it is a very poor piece of scriptural study which stops at these verses. John wrote the Gospel of John with the intention people must read the entire Gospel. You cannot fully understand John 20-21 if you fail to study John 1. Likewise, John 6 is explained and fulfilled in John 17.

6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.
6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
17:6 "I have revealed you[a] to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word.

6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
17:24 "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

Literally every element of John 6 is fulfilled in John 17. The whole point of who would be drawn to Christ was about those who would come to him during his mortal life. That is a huge interpretive error.

Absent John 6 and Romans 9, which I have shown to be incorrectly interpreted by monergists, I find no passages which even remotely support the doctrine of Unconditional Grace.

Peace.

TULIP and Monergism by the Letters: T is for Total Depravity of Mankind

In discussing the monergistic (i.e. Calvinistic) approach to dealing with and contrasting the differences in beliefs between Mormons and monergists, I think it best to let monergists speak for themselves in terms of what they believe, and the scriptural basis for those beliefs. Leroy, a frequent visitor to this blog, has volunteered his own writings as a source of material to describe and defend the monergistic perspective. He has a web page here which describes his understanding of monergism, and gives some "prooftexts" to defend his perspective.

Monergism was formally articulated by John Calvin in the 16th century. Though its followers may assert the doctrines to be the original message of scripture, Calvin is recognized as the person who created the first comprehensive and systematic presentation of the doctrine in its current recognized clarity. A definition of monergism from monergism.com is as follows:

Monergism (monergistic regeneration) is a redemptive blessing purchased by Christ for those the Father has given Him (1 Pet 1:3, John 6:37, 39). This grace works independently of any human cooperation and conveys that power into the fallen soul whereby the person who is to be saved is effectually enabled to respond to the gospel call (Acts 2:39, 1 Cor 1:2, 9, 24, Rom 8:30 John 1:13, Acts 13:48). It is that supernatural power of God alone whereby we are granted the spiritual ability and desire to comply with the conditions of the covenant of grace; that is, to apprehend the Redeemer by a living faith, to come up to the terms of salvation, to repent of idols and to love God and the Mediator supremely. The Holy Spirit, in quickening the soul, mercifully capacitates and inclines God's elect to the spiritual exercise of faith in Jesus Christ (John 6:44, 1 John 5:1). This instantaneous and intensely personal work of God is the means by which the Spirit brings us into living union with Him.

Here are now Leroy’s comments from his web page, without editing of content, though I did have to paste several comments on the page together to get all of the T content:

T: For the purposes of God, in accordance with His Holiness and perfection, and for reasons that His creations will not know on Earth, beginning with the fall in original sin and the spiritual death of Adam and Eve, no one has been willing or able to do anything in accordance with righteousness. Everyone has inherited the spiritual death through Adam and is a natural enemy of God who does not seek God in spirit or truth and will not love God of his or her own natural will. We are dead. Our works are dead. Our philosophies, systems, desires, and imaginations are dead.

T: Total depravity and Total inability and Total unwillingness and Total reliance and Total dependence

T: Gen. 6:5, Gen. 6:11-12, Job 15:14-16, Psa. 14:1-3, Psa. 51:5, Psa. 58:3, Psa. 143:2, Prov. 5:22, Prov. 14:12, Prov. 20:9, Eccl. 7:20, Eccl. 7:29, Eccl. 9:3, Isa. 1:4-6, Isa. 44:18-20, Isa. 44:25-28, Isa. 48:8, Isa. 53:6, Isa. 64:6-7, Jer. 4:22, Jer. 9:5, Jer. 13:23, Jer. 17:1, Jer. 17:9, Matt. 7:18, Matt. 7:23, Matt. 12:34-35, Matt. 15:13, Mark 10:26-27, Luke 8:11-12, John 1:13, John 3:3, John 3:19-20, John 3:27, John 6:44, John 6:65, John 15:5, Rom. 1:18-32, Rom. 3:9-23, Rom. 5:12, Rom. 7:14, Rom. 8:5-8, Rom. 9:8, Rom. 11:8, Rom. 11:32, Rom. 14:23, 1 Cor. 2:14, 1 Cor. 15:21-22, Gal. 3:22-23, Eph. 2:1, Eph. 4:17-19, Phili. 2:13, 2 Tim. 4:3-4, Titus 1:15, Heb. 11:6, James 1:14, James 1:17, James 4:17, 1 John 2:16

T: Only by being set free by the Spirit can we freely will and act in righteousness. Regeneration precedes faith. Faith always follows regeneration. You must be born again to receive saving faith and no one is saved without faith. The unregenerate are under the law of sin and death and, making choices out of their own free will, never please God. They cannot believe because they always choose not to. Rebirth happens in an instant for the elect and is the sovereign act of God.

Let it never be said I did not try to be as supportive as possible of presenting the other side’s position. Of course I disagree with the premise that simply because men are capable and have committed sin, they are incapable of feeling the Spirit or choosing right or wrong.

The fundamental teaching of the Fall was that men are able to discern right from wrong, as the god’s are likewise able to do. Quoting God:

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. (Genesis 3:22-23).

This point will be the basis of all argument by me. Namely, unless you can show me from scripture where God is quoted as saying, more or less,

“Behold, the man is NOW become UNLIKE one of us, he no longer knows good and evil”,

then scripture is explicit saying we do know good and evil. Emphasizing the lasting nature of that ability to choose, God has man driven into the world with that knowledge, to protect him from partaking of the Tree of Life and living forever. Until a Savior could be sent, if Adam were to live forever in his fallen state, he could never be brought back into the presence of God (1 Cor 15:21-22).

Such a change in doctrine, namely that man somehow lost his ability to discern good and evil, would require a definitive, authoritative exposition on the order of the change from the Law of Moses to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Or of circumcision of the flesh for circumcision of the heart. It must be a definite, contextually equivalent statement of superordination . I make this point explicit because it is not enough to simply say that we deduce such has happened because of our interpretation and application of certain verses of scripture.

This is where you will find me a highly conservative scriptural warrior. Time and again I encounter people who protest or criticize the LDS Church for various reasons, but when you try to get them to produce a cogent, Biblically based defense of their own position, they respond with theology, and then read the scriptures in light of their theology.

Such a position for me as an LDS believer in continuing revelation through the Holy Spirit and modern day prophets is actually defensible. I don’t see the scriptures as the only word on doctrine or theology. Even so, I am starting with the first definitive statement in the Bible on the will of men, their ability to choose good and evil, and I am laying down the gauntlet: Show me in scripture where this was changed, or admit monergism is a rational development based on a scriptural interpretation, and not a Biblical imperative.

If scripture is to be interpreted as the only authority in the area of theology, then your theological position must flow from precise statements of scripture, not your understanding of scripture from theological statements. If the Bible is the source, theology should just be a systematic explanation of what is, not the other way around.

So Genesis 3:22-23 is the place to start, in my mind.

Paul’s statements of “none do good” (Romans 3:10-18) or are righteous, or fear God must be understood in the context of Genesis 3:22. As I hear evangelicals so often say, use scripture to interpret scripture. Unless there is a definitive statement rebuking the agency of man, then Paul is writing in a clear understanding that men can choose to do good or evil, regardless of their fallen state. Likewise, looking beyond Paul's citations from the Old Testament to the actual scriptures he cites, it is clear from the scriptures that these are not saying there are not people capable of doing good, but rather that fallen man cannot save himself. Read Ecclesiatestes 7, Psalms 14, or Psalm 53; Psalm 5, Psalm 140, Psalm 10, Isaiah 59 and Proverbs 1, (Psalm67?) and Psalm 35. These are the most likely source verses for Paul’s quotations in Romans 3. Every one of the chapters, while making some blanket statements about there are no righteous or other such statement, also clearly says there are also righteous and good people out there.

On the other hand, Leroy cites Gen 6:5, 11-12 as support of the Total Depravity of man. Yet right there, right in the heart of the statements Leroy cites is this statement about Noah: "These [are] the generations of Noah:

Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God." (Gen 6:9)

So even though it says that every imagination from the heart of men was evil (vs. 5), Noah, a man, was just and perfect, and even walked with God, whatever that means. In other words, there are still non-wicked people among mankind, and there is no teaching saying the evil being done was by monergistic nature versus their choice. Since we have no statement undoing Gen 3:22 yet, Biblically I have to think the author of Genesis is in effect telling us the people are choosing evil. This would seem to be a more scripturally consistent reading in light of 1 Peter 3:20 where those people of Noah's day are said to have been "disobedient", which clearly means they made a choice to do evil. In fact, the word Peter uses for “disobedient” means to resist being persuaded and to not obey. Again, it sounds like a choice to me, and in light of the context of Genesis 6, it seems to fit the text better than to assert they were evil because they were fallen and incapable of choosing to obey. According to Peter, they refused to allow themselves to be persuaded from their evil. (BTW, we will go through each “proof text” individually to verify their context and merit, and present those discussions for the reader.)

Paul was not teaching we cannot do good. He was teaching we do not have the ability to save ourselves. In Rom 3:19 he says the whole world is guilty of sin because of the Law. But in verses 22-24, Paul makes this statement about for whom Christ’s righteousness is applied:

22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Notice the two classes for whom Christ’s righteousness is applied:

1. Unto all

2. Upon all that believe

Why? Because as concerning sin, there is no difference whether you believe or not. As verse 23 reminds us, “All have sinned”. This is the restatement of Romans 2:11

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

If God forgave some sins simply because of a random, unknowable criteria, then he would be a partial god, and in my view, a fallen god. He would be unjust. It would be the moral equivalent of “hate crimes” legislation, even though the transgression of the Law of Moses was about deeds. ‘Thou shall not’… types of statements, and when you did, you transgressed the Law. There was no penalty for not feeding the poor, and the standard for that was not laid out. You gave tithes and offerings, or you burned at the Lord’s coming. These were actions. Thus Paul also teaches (Romans 2:13-14) that when the gentile did by nature those things contained in the Law of Moses, they became a Law unto themselves. Transgressing those elements of the Law so discerned meant they committed an act of sin. Doers of the Law of Moses were Justified, and it was impossible to keep every element of the Law perfectly.

Paul then teaches that because of Christ’s atonement for the sins of the whole world, all are justified (Romans 3:30). But he teaches that there are two types of faith working for Justification: The faith of the believer, which allows him to remain Justified, and the faith of Christ on behalf of the rest of the world. If after being justified by the Faith of Christ, the world casts him aside, then are they truly punished for actively rejecting the Savior, breaking the rules Christ instituted for the reception of saving grace. But they made a choice, or else Christ is a respector of Persons, not giving all an equal chance for salvation.

Mankind is fallen, and has a nature which wars against the things of God. But since the Fall, mankind is also able to discern Good and Evil. It is a false paradigm, in my view, to say on the one hand I am free any time I want to turn my car to the right, and then give me a care which is only capable of turning left or going straight. If man is incapable of comprehending or choosing good, he cannot be held accountable for the bad he does. But if he can choose good, then he must be able to obtain the same results as any other person potentially can obtain, or else God is a respecter of persons. God can certainly set the rules, and the fact he even provides for rules to be created is a great act of grace on his part.

In my opinion, TULIP would fall solely based on the false nature of this tenet of their theology. Sadly, all five elements of TULIP are false constructs, creating a net, as it were, of self-referencing false doctrine. Within the body of this post we can explore the supposed scriptural support for both points of view.

What say you?

Peace

Grace and Justification Defined

Don't roll your eyes just yet sports fans. Sometimes we need to be very basic to communicate accurately. Two terms that constantly seem to be pitted against Mormons by our non-LDS friends and critics are Grace and Justification. It is often asserted that Mormons are dealing with a different vocabulary than the rest of Christianity. Well, if Christianity had a firmly defined set of meanings for all terms, it would make life easier. Sadly, there are many terms which are controversial, whether LDS or not. Because of a desire to move ahead discussing the differences in LDS and Calvinistic perspectives, I think it best I get some clarity of what Justification and Grace mean.

Justification, or to be Justified, has its roots in a Biblical word having to do with the legal status of a person. The Greek word dikaiosune and its cousin words (Strongs 1342-47) were used frequently by Paul and other New Testament writers, and is similar in meaning to righteousness, especially in a legal sense. So it lends itself very well to counter-positioning to the Hebrew Law (gr. Nomos) to illustrate the superiority of Christ to the Law of Moses.

The Atonement of Christ makes us right with God. Everyone is justified. But we retain the justification through our faithfulness. Everyone is therefore made righteous through Christ, but again that righteousness is retained only through obedience brought about by faith. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. So by justification we are taken back into the presence of God. Our ability to stay there depends upon our faith and actions towards obeying God. In the Book of Mormon we read:

Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection--Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life. (Alma 40:11)

The ability to retain the state of grace in the presence of God and Paradise is determined by our actions in this life, and how we knowingly chose good or evil.

Grace is an interesting component of Justification. Grace has many definitions and meanings, and the exact meaning is dependent upon context. For example, God’s gift of creation is an act of grace not specifically earned by any of us.

The most common understanding of Grace in New Testament times was within the system of reciprocal giving of the Oriental and Occidental cultures. It was an act of grace to give something one was not obligated to give. It was almost a technical term to dispense grace, such as by a king or benefactor: “a beneficent disposition toward someone, favor, grace, gracious care/help, goodwill.” (See A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature; Third Edition, BDAG, 2000, U. of Chicago Press, entry Xaris, definition 2, page 1079, hereafter BDAG).

For example, by grace we are saved through faith, and not of the works of the Law of Moses. The fact the gift is given without obligation on the part of the giver, so it is not paid as a debt but as a gift, does not mean the giver cannot attach specific conditions or qualifications precedent and predicate to the gift.

Grace is generosity for something without merit. It is being given a Rolls Royce when all the money we have to pay with is $10. There may have been a for sale sign in the car window stating a price of $300,000. The seller took pity on the condition of the buyer, and grace was the difference. The gift is out of proportion and not earned, but that is not to say that there are not requirements to receive the gift. And he who gave the gift must still pay the cost of the gift, for to not do so would be theft and unjust. And even though the gift is given, it can be taken at any time should we violate the terms and conditions upon which the gift was given.

In the parable of the Kings Wedding Feast (Matt 22:1-14), all are invited to partake at the feast. Attendance at the actual wedding feast was Grace. Those to whom the servants (prophets and apostles) first went were the House of Israel. All were offered the invitation: They were justified. It allowed them to enter the Feast. Nothing was earned to get there. Responding to the calling is faith. The Wedding Garment is obedience. They had to come, and they had to be clothed in the wedding garment. The fact that all the people, good or bad, were invited and came means that all men are justified. Their obedience, including accepting Christ, was determinative in their salvation. For they were in the King’s Palace, but some could not stay. And Christ said this is how Heaven is.

While any parable can be pushed beyond its reasonable interpretive limits, it is hard to visualize a better word-canvas outlining the LDS doctrine of salvation. In the series of parables taught in Matthew 21-22, we see Christ describe the need for action and not just confession (21:28-32), the imminent giving of the channel of salvation to a new group because of the unrighteous works of the leaders of Israel (21:33-46), and the necessity of keeping the two great commandments. It is impossible to see how all of these teachings by Christ can be relevant if we believe God predestined some to salvation without regard to their worthiness. In the parable of the Wedding Feast, the Earthly actions of the invited determined whether they were worthy (22:8). Failing to respond, which is a lack of faith, disqualified Pharaseeic Israel. Even those who responded, entered the feast and were seated were not guaranteed of remaining. The whole world was invited, many came, and only a few remained. Therefore, many were called, but only a few chosen. We will certainly get to that.

I think from these definitions and passages, and comparing them to Paul’s specific teaching on the desire of God to save all men, and that Christ is the Saviour of all men, most of all those who believe,(1 Tim 2:4; 4:10) the New Testament destroys any sense that the atonement is limited to just a few people, or that God only wants to save a few of his children. The two verses in 1Timothy 2:4 and 4:10 are especially devastating to any attempt to limit 1 Tim. 2:4 to any particular sub-group and avoid the clear and obvious meaning of the verse. I look forward to discussing these verses and similar ones in great depth.

For those who do not enjoy a deep look under the hood of the scriptures, the next little while may be a solution to that insomnia you have been struggling with. Otherwise, roll up your sleeves pseudo-scholars and jump in with both feet. Based on past experience with Leroy, I am betting we will have a lively discussion, and that it is unlikely he will give up as others do as we roll out facts. It is my blog, so I can’t go anywhere. Besides, it is my sense from meeting and discussing things with Leroy that he is sincere about his desire to develop a deeper understanding of both his faith, and the LDS view of these important subjects as well.

Let the games begin.

Peace.