Shawn Mcraney Begs For An Apologist/Scholar To Come On The Show

[Tacenda]

Tacenda;

When ever you go to a website such as the one you linked to, you have to put the questions into the context of who the presenter is. Their entire mission is to bring people to their own church by proving others wrong. They propose to teach truth by attacking other religions. This is, in my opinion, evil. From reading the responses that some have provided, it is clear that the website does not even pretend to present truth. They are distorting the teachings of many other religions, not just Mormons. Read some of the comments they say about Catholics and Muslims.

They do not even state what 'expert' they relied on to get the information for their site. They don't source any of the material so we are to simply assume they are being truthful. It is not possible to attack someone and be truthful. If yous seek to find fault, you must be of the position that there is no virtue in your target.

When they say 'horse feature prominently in the Book of Mormon' I have to ask: really? Not the one I am reading. When they see the word 'chariot' and assume 'wheels' they are either profoundly ignorant or intentionally deceptive. Based on the material on their site, it is clear they are the latter.

I am still interested in your distinction between being saved by faith and being judged according to works. If the evangelicals have it right, what is the difference?

The EV's believe that the fall of Adam & Eve was indeed a sin and that if it weren't for God coming down and gaining a body to die for us we'd be damned and in Satan's power. They feel God truly wanted Adam & Eve in the garden with him and they would be able to procreate there. They believe that we need to accept Jesus name upon us and turn our lives over to him. They believe it is the gift of life and not from working for it. They believe the works we do is to follow his commandments 1st Love Him 2nd Love our neighbor and if we do those two we won't break any of the other commandments. Theybelieve they will sin and are sinners, and need to continually work on it. Here's a scenerio I thought about to describe the works for grace idea. Imagine you give your child a gift but before that child receives or accepts it they go around working around the house before they feel they can accept. Therefore it took the joy of giving it right out. The EV's believe works come naturally if you have truly turned your life over after being saved.

[ERayR]

The EV's believe that the fall of Adam & Eve was indeed a sin and that if it weren't for God coming down and gaining a body to die for us we'd be damned and in Satan's power. They feel God truly wanted Adam & Eve in the garden with him and they would be able to procreate there. They believe that we need to accept Jesus name upon us and turn our lives over to him. They believe it is the gift of life and not from working for it. They believe the works we do is to follow his commandments 1st Love Him 2nd Love our neighbor and if we do those two we won't break any of the other commandments. Theybelieve they will sin and are sinners, and need to continually work on it. Here's a scenerio I thought about to describe the works for grace idea. Imagine you give your child a gift but before that child receives or accepts it they go around working around the house before they feel they can accept. Therefore it took the joy of giving it right out. The EV's believe works come naturally if you have truly turned your life over after being saved.

The do then believe in works.

[Calm]

The purpose of works is to prepare us to fully receive God's gifts, not to earn it. There is no way that we could earn it as its value is more than life itself plus God is always giving us additional blessings.

An analogy would be learning to read so that when we receive a wonderful first edition of whatever book you think is the greatest book in the world, we can not only hold it in our hands or look at the pictures (assuming that it has pictures) but enjoy the content by reading it. Learning to read in no way means we have somehow paid for the book or exchanged it for our work. The book was a gift, but we prepared to not only receive it, but to be able to take full advantage of it once we were given it.

[Tacenda]

The do then believe in works.

Most definitely, but they believe they are saved by grace alone. Not, they are saved by grace, after all they can do.

[Tacenda]

The purpose of works is to prepare us to fully receive God's gifts, not to earn it. There is no way that we could earn it as its value is more than life itself plus God is always giving us additional blessings.

An analogy would be learning to read so that when we receive a wonderful first edition of whatever book you think is the greatest book in the world, we can not only hold it in our hands or look at the pictures (assuming that it has pictures) but enjoy the content by reading it. Learning to read in no way means we have somehow paid for the book or exchanged it for our work. The book was a gift, but we prepared to not only receive it, but to be able to take full advantage of it once we were given it.

I like that analogy, you kind of got me there. But I'm just giving you their take, I believe that's what Shawn keeps reiterating.

[Libs]

The do then believe in works.

The difference is that most EV's do not believe that their works apply towards their salvation. They believe Christ's righteousness will stand in for their (lack of righteousness). His righteousness will be substituted for theirs.

[ERayR]

Most definitely, but they believe they are saved by grace alone. Not, they are saved by grace, after all they can do.

LDS doctrine is that we are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. Many misunderstand the "all the can do" phrase. I believe that phrase means that no matter what we do when all is said and done it will be by the grace of God that we are saved and exalted. King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon nails it in my opinion.

Mosiah 2:20-5

20 I say unto you, my brethren, that if you should render all the ^athanks and ^bpraise which your whole soul has power to possess, to that God who has created you, and has kept and ^cpreserved you, and has caused that ye should ^drejoice, and has granted that ye should live in peace one with another—

21 I say unto you that if ye should ^aserve him who has created you from the beginning, and is ^bpreserving you from day to day, by lending you ^cbreath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own ^dwill, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your ^ewhole souls yet ye would be ^funprofitable servants.

22 And behold, all that he ^arequires of you is to ^bkeep his commandments; and he has ^cpromised you that if ye would keep his commandments ye should prosper in the land; and he never doth ^dvary from that which he hath said; therefore, if ye do ^ekeep his ^fcommandments he doth bless you and prosper you.

23 And now, in the first place, he hath created you, and granted unto you your lives, for which ye are indebted unto him.

24 And secondly, he doth ^arequire that ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if ye do, he doth immediately ^bbless you; and therefore he hath paid you. And ye are still indebted unto him, and are, and will be, forever and ever; therefore, of what have ye to boast?

25 And now I ask, can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay. Ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth; yet ye were ^acreated of the ^bdust of the earth; but behold, it ^cbelongeth to him who created you.

Edited July 8, 2012 by ERayR

[Freedom]

Most definitely, but they believe they are saved by grace alone. Not, they are saved by grace, after all they can do.

They do, although this doctrine is not found anywhere in the bible. After all, if we are saved by grace alone, then what about the verse you quoted that states we are saved by faith? Or what about the teaching of Jesus that states 'he that endureth to the end shall be saved' Matt 10:22 or 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved' Mark 16:16. Or Luke 7: 50 which states 'thy faith hath saved thee'.

If works follow being saved, then why are there born-again christians in prison? According to their doctrine, all saved people should be perfect. And it still does not address the matter of being judged according to our works. If we are saved by grace alone (by the way, this is a calvinist doctrine that is rejected by the website you linked to ironically) then you still have to address the matter of why we have the bible at all. Why would we not just have a small sheet of paper that says 'believe in Jesus'. Also, if we are saved be grace, why does it matter what doctrines we believe in? unless of course we are saved by grace alone, so long as you believe the correct doctrine - yet another non-biblical concept. And if, as you say, we are all sinners and we have to work on it it begs the question: why? If I am saved, and there is nothing I can do to get saved, and there is nothing I can do to lose this status, why bother trying not to sin? I can get saved and go on to live a life of crime without any consequence.

Can you imagine what your children would be like if they had to work for nothing? What gifts do you appreciate more: those you earn or those your receive without any obligation on your part? We learn through work, this is how God designed us. We are learning to work, which is by definition meaningful service and aquiring a pure heart, because this is the nature of heaven. We are not earning our way there, but rather we are learning to live the proper lifestyle. Those who elect not to live this way will not be happy there and so, will not be given entrance.

One final question which I asked before, can you provide for me the definition from the bible of the the term 'saved'? I think you will be surprised at what you find out.

[Tacenda]

They do, although this doctrine is not found anywhere in the bible. After all, if we are saved by grace alone, then what about the verse you quoted that states we are saved by faith? Or what about the teaching of Jesus that states 'he that endureth to the end shall be saved' Matt 10:22 or 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved' Mark 16:16. Or Luke 7: 50 which states 'thy faith hath saved thee'.

If works follow being saved, then why are there born-again christians in prison? According to their doctrine, all saved people should be perfect. And it still does not address the matter of being judged according to our works. If we are saved by grace alone (by the way, this is a calvinist doctrine that is rejected by the website you linked to ironically) then you still have to address the matter of why we have the bible at all. Why would we not just have a small sheet of paper that says 'believe in Jesus'. Also, if we are saved be grace, why does it matter what doctrines we believe in? unless of course we are saved by grace alone, so long as you believe the correct doctrine - yet another non-biblical concept. And if, as you say, we are all sinners and we have to work on it it begs the question: why? If I am saved, and there is nothing I can do to get saved, and there is nothing I can do to lose this status, why bother trying not to sin? I can get saved and go on to live a life of crime without any consequence.

Can you imagine what your children would be like if they had to work for nothing? What gifts do you appreciate more: those you earn or those your receive without any obligation on your part? We learn through work, this is how God designed us. We are learning to work, which is by definition meaningful service and aquiring a pure heart, because this is the nature of heaven. We are not earning our way there, but rather we are learning to live the proper lifestyle. Those who elect not to live this way will not be happy there and so, will not be given entrance.

One final question which I asked before, can you provide for me the definition from the bible of the the term 'saved'? I think you will be surprised at what you find out.

Gosh, you guys don't ever take the first answer, I guess you're making me do the homework I haven't done yet. Thanks to you, Cal & ERayR. I'm on it. Okay need to look up "saved".... Edited July 8, 2012 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

The difference is that most EV's do not believe that their works apply towards their salvation. They believe Christ's righteousness will stand in for their (lack of righteousness). His righteousness will be substituted for theirs.

Thanks Libs for your input, I need some help. Though I feel I'm fighting a losing battle, and I'm not even evangelical. Weird I'm fighting for them. So confused right now!

[Freedom]

Thanks Libs for your input, I need some help. Though I feel I'm fighting a losing battle, and I'm not even evangelical. Weird I'm fighting for them. So confused right now!

It is my position that nobody can win the battle over the bible. I disagree with evangelical doctrine and I can find passages that appear to contradict their teachings, but if I could prove them wrong then there would only be one religion. The bible is not clear and this is why there are so many belief systems based on the same book. This is one of the testaments to me of the need for a restoration.

[Buzzard]

It is my position that nobody can win the battle over the bible. I disagree with evangelical doctrine and I can find passages that appear to contradict their teachings, but if I could prove them wrong then there would only be one religion. The bible is not clear and this is why there are so many belief systems based on the same book. This is one of the testaments to me of the need for a restoration.

I was just thinking that I had run across this scenario before...in the Joseph Smith-History section of the POGP.

[Storm Rider]

Thanks Libs for your input, I need some help. Though I feel I'm fighting a losing battle, and I'm not even evangelical. Weird I'm fighting for them. So confused right now!

Tacenda, it is not wrong to find truth in the teachings of other churches or religions. God, through his prophets, has taught us to seek after truth and wherever it is found, we claim that truth as our own. In other words, all truth belongs to God and we search after all truth.

The caution is that to be blown about by every wind of doctrine reveals a lack of foundation or standard by which we are able to distinguish truth from error. You may want to consider strengthening your foundation before you do more searching. There is a reason that the apostles always focus on the fundamentals of the Gospel: repentance, faith, baptism, Gift of the Holy Ghost, prayer, love, and forgiveness. If one truly understands these building blocks of the Gospel of Christ, then one is able to distinguish truth from error. One can worship or pray with a Catholic, an Evangelical, or anyone else that worships the God of Abraham and the Son of God.

I am reminded of Jesus' comment to Peter in Luke 22:

¶And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold,

a

Satan

hath desired to

b

have

you, that he may sift you as wheat:

32 But I have

a

prayed

for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art

b

converted

,

c

strengthen

thy brethren.

When thou art converted; Peter had been taught at the feet of the Savior for three years and yet was not yet fully converted. This is counsel for all of us; don't be surprised that we each need converting even after been taught the gospel for years. The warning however is dire and real; Satan desires to sift each of us as wheat. He wants to destroy each of us by ripping away all that have to believe in, all that we know is true, until we are completely defenseless against his attacks.

Now is a time to go back to basics and fundamentals. Remember the counsel in the Doctrine & Covenants 27:16:

Stand, therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, having on the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace, which I have sent mine angels to commit unto you;

[Libs]

Thanks Libs for your input, I need some help. Though I feel I'm fighting a losing battle, and I'm not even evangelical. Weird I'm fighting for them. So confused right now!

You're welcome and I totally understand. It can get very confusing when you have people from varying belief systems tugging at you. I'm going to send you a PM.

[cdowis]

To those who declare "faith only, not works", I ask them a simple question, is baptism necessary for salvation?

Edited July 8, 2012 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

Not according to Shawn, me I'm not sure yet. But Shawn said it is more a showing of the turning your lfe over to him. So not what LDS believe since we believe it's a requirement.

[Deborah]

Not according to Shawn, me I'm not sure yet. But Shawn said it is more a showing of the turning your lfe over to him. So not what LDS believe since we believe it's a requirement.

Obviously Christ believed it a requirement as well. And if we are to turn our lives over to Christ shouldn't we follow his example?

Edited July 8, 2012 by Deborah

[Storm Rider]

Not according to Shawn, me I'm not sure yet. But Shawn said it is more a showing of the turning your lfe over to him. So not what LDS believe since we believe it's a requirement.

This position is common among some Protestant groups; however, it is odd that Jesus was the one who sought out John to be baptized. This was the Son of God, the one who would hang on a cross. It surprises me that he would need something symbolic to show he was committed to following God the Father. Wouldn't sacrificing your life suffice? Obviously, Jesus did not think so.

After Christ's resurrection Peter's command to those who would follow Christ in Acts 2:38, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." He is clear what the purpose of baptism is: the remission of sins. There was no insinuation, word, or anything else that would indicate that baptism was on a sumbolic act.

Think about Bible and how few things we have recorded about Jesus' life. However, of the scripture we have, baptism is mentioned sixty times. Not a few times, or once or twice, but sixty times. It was a common topic of discussion by Jesus and among those who would follow him.

Just as an aside: the vast majority, as in more than 70% of the Christian churches teach baptism as a requirement; not something that is only symbolic. All of the Catholic churches teach this and they represent the vast majority of Christianity; it is a distinct minority that does not.

[altersteve]

I agree, Storm Rider. I think the position that baptism is merely a way of turning your life over to God is indefensible in light of what Peter says in Acts 2:38.

[Freedom]

This brings out one of the challenges of the grace-only adherents that nobody has explained to me. The bible seems to be filled with a lot of redundant or irrelevant teachings that are presented with a lot of passion but are given no value. There is precious little we know of Jesus's teachings, I do not understand why he would have spent his time teaching concepts that signify nothing. He teaches a baptism that we do not require, he admonished good works that do not save, he commands repentance that makes no difference, he preaches prayer that provides no answers.

I think I used this example before, but if works are a natural produce of the saved then it would not be mentioned. It is like having a section on the importance of falling in your skydiving manual.

[cdowis]

Not according to Shawn, me I'm not sure yet. But Shawn said it is more a showing of the turning your lfe over to him. So not what LDS believe since we believe it's a requirement.

Chrrist gives us the answer in Mark 16:16. Shawn does not know the scriptures.

[PacMan]

Tacenda,

On increasing faith, I wanted to point out a quick problem in the logic. Simply because Romans says it comes from hearing the word of God does not discount the spirit. In fact, the notion is incongruent. Better understood is Joseph Smith's instruction:

"Faith comes by hearing the word of God, through the testimony of the servants of God; that testimony is always attended by the Spirit of prophecy and revelation.”

I think that's the better way to look at it. If these guys are saying you don't need a spiritual witness, then how do you know it's actually the word of God? Careful with what they're selling.

[vanehale]

Shawn McCraney appeared once the Mormon Miscellaneous Worldwide Talk Show 17 April 2007 hosted by Van Hale. If he is willing, he is certainly invited to return in the near future.

Further, Van Hale would be pleased to appear on his program, if he were willing.

Following is the internet location to hear the 17 April 2007 discussion of Shawn McCraney and Van Hale:

http://mormonmisc.podbean.com/2007/04/17/anti-mormon-vs-mormon/

Anti-Mormon verses Mormon

My guest was Shawn McCraney. He is an ex-Mormon who hosts a weekly anti-Mormon TV show which airs in Salt Lake City, Utah and Boise, Idaho. The fact that Shawn is an aggressive anti-Mormon, and I, Van Hale, am a believing, participating Mormon, resulted in a lively and confrontational dialogue. Interest was high and many attempted to participate by phone and email - more than I was able to include in the two hour discussion. Those who enjoy this type of religious wrangling will not want to miss this.

Because of the nature of this discussion, I fear that I may not be able to provide an appropriate summary, so I have decided not to attempt to it.

Talk Show host: Van Hale, LDS

Podcast address: www.mormonmisc.podbean.com

This is the 15 April 2007 episode of the Mormon Miscellaneous Worldwide Talk Show, now in its 27th year.

To listen to future Talk Shows live, go to www.k-talk.com Sunday evenings 5:00 - 7:00 pm MST.

If you have a question or comment, your participation is invited, regardless of your point of view.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well done! It took me awhile to get through the review, but well worth it. Especially because I haven't read his book. I thought it was very unbiased. I hadn't realised he wrote a paper for Sunstone.

I guess it took him quite a few years to come out of mormonism. Now what about a review of his other book Mormonism A to Z? ;-)

I will almost assuredly never read anything Shawn McCraney writes ever again. I appreciate your positive response to the review. In that review I attempted to cull something worthwhile out of his book by asking: if we take Shawn's personal story seriously, aside from is under-informed statements on doctrine and history, what might Mormons take away from the book? I'm happy you thought the review was fair-minded. I actually sent it to Shawn to read before it was published and he responded positively although he disagreed on a few claims regarding Mormon belief. Later, however, he appeared on a podcast interview and called it a biased hit-piece that unfairly tarnished his moral reputation. This, to me, was good evidence that Shawn is a showman, and that either he was being dishonest about my review, or he is not entirely competent in regards to his differing ways of analyzing it (positively to me, negatively on a podcast show).

I didn't mention it in the review, but I can say here without equivocation that Shawn's book was the worst book on Mormonism I've ever read. And I've read a few books. Shawn presents as distorted an image of Mormonism as he does Christianity in general. I can honestly say that reading McCraney for the sake of better understanding Christianity would largely be a waste of time. His presentation was scatter-shot, his claims of his self-seeking were frequently grandiose and not well-sustained (especially his claims of investigating different religions and philosophies), the technical aspects of the book were simply terrible, and aside from his own personal story the rest of the book is 100% derivative on other often-inadequate publications. I give his book no stars, and I don't recommend it to anyone.

Edited July 11, 2012 by LifeOnaPlate

[Vance]

Shawn McCraney appeared once the Mormon Miscellaneous Worldwide Talk Show 17 April 2007 hosted by Van Hale. If he is willing, he is certainly invited to return in the near future.

And Van Hale treated him far better than McCraney treats his guests.

Further, Van Hale would be pleased to appear on his program, if he were willing.

McCraney would filibuster even worse.