Heart of the Matter w/ Shawn McCraney

[WalkerW]

Kind of shot himself in the foot with that email, didn't he?

Still, it's kind of entertaining to see how he handles disagreement-which seems to be that he can't handle it at all.

I was just like, "Really? That is your response?" No refutation. No arguments. Just "I had a conversation...and we think it is a stretch. Besides that, YOU ARE INSECURE AND UNFAIR AND IN DENIAL AND...AND...WELL, YOU SUCK! SO THERE!"

Oh, well.

[William the Conqueror]

I called in the other night to McCraney's anti-Mormon show "Heart of the Matter" and talked briefly about the Divine Council. I have the story and links here if anyone is interested.

You mention Daniel B. Wallace of DTS. Wallace took Ehrman's book to task Misquoting Jesus. Do you have his view on the Divine Council or has he stated one?

[WalkerW]

You mention Daniel B. Wallace of DTS. Wallace took Ehrman's book to task Misquoting Jesus. Do you have his view on the Divine Council or has he stated one?

I mentioned Wallace because he was the first one that came to mind when it came to the NET, seeing that McCraney wanted scholars who worked on it. It was in hopes of getting Shawn to actually look at it rather than blow it off. I don't know how much he was involved in when it came to OT though. I don't have a clue about his Divine Council position.

In my opinion, however, even the NET is soft on its Divine Council take, though it does make mention of it. This is due to it being slanted towards evangelicals.

[handys003]

You do realize guys like that are just going to blow off your resources don't you? Your already an brainwashed idiot in his mind. Anyway kudos for your effort. Does his brodcast reach D/FW on TV or is it strictly radio?

I called it! I also stand by from seeing his other videos that he has NPD. He's not worth the effort Walker.

[WalkerW]

I called it! I also stand by from seeing his other videos that he has NPD. He's not worth the effort Walker.

Oh, I know. It is rather entertaining though.

[WalkerW]

What I expect to be Shawn McCraney's final email to me: I'm not sure you understand: I have nothing for you. You are a deceiver and are intellectually dishonest. I am done with you.

My response:

"I'm not sure you understand: I have nothing for you."

I figured. I just was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

"I have nothing for you"

Which is why the rest of your response is worthless.

"You are a deceiver..."

Must be a Mormon thing...

"and are intellectually dishonest"

So says the man who provides no arguments or sources to refute the Divine Council.

"I am done with you."

So be it.

He sure showed me.

[bluebell]

Well, you tried.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Personally I think you would have been better off walking away with a little more dignity. McCraney is clearly not capable of engaging in the scholarship, but no need to cast aspersions his way.

[bjw]

I just listened to this and read his reply to Walker. I just wish his EV audience could see how he avoids issues whenever someone has evidence he can't explain. He wouldn't even let Walker talk to explain the rest of the evidence he had, and he resorted to ad hominem attacks in the reply, instead of a step-by-step refutation of the argument, which I would like to see.

Christ said we would be persecuted in the last days, and I think this program is an excellent example of it.

I also didn't like the way he twisted semantics on the salvation issue. Although it doesn't concern Walker's topic, he devoted a large chunk of the beginning to the fact that we allegedly believe in a works salvation whereas he believes in salvation by grace, which he claims is the "Biblical Christianity" view. What he failed to mention is that LDS define salvation differently from protestants.

I've noticed when we mention salvation we are referring to receiving the maximum exaltation and reaching the Father's presence. We look at salvation as a five act play, with faith, repentance, baptism by water & fire, Temple Endowment, and Sealing. Baptism is the gateway into the celestial kingdom and those that are sealed will make it to the Father's presence, which is what we call salvation.

In contrast, protestants call salvation going to heaven instead of going to hell. Everyone that doesn't receive the protestant salvation will burn in hell for eternity. Whereas, if someone falls short of the LDS "salvation," they will go to a lower kingdom of heaven and will not dwell where the Father is.

Therefore, I don't think his assessment was fair that we believe we are saved by works alone, since faith is the first principle of the gospel and it would surely get a person at least into heaven, with a baptism, even if by proxy, will advance them to a higher heaven. With the LDS view not as many people will receive damnation, they will just receive fewer rewards in the next life.

I think the LDS view is a lot more "grace" oriented when viewed in this light, and McCraney does not explain this difference when talking about salvation on his program.

He then brought up the issue of our view of the atonement being at odds with "Biblical Christianity." Christ died for our sins and rose again so that we can have life, and I see no problem with him also suffering for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane as part of the atonement. This way death and suffering are taken out of the way. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this view, since we know Jesus suffered a lot of pain before dying on the cross. Sometimes I think guys like McCraney are looking to create issues where there are none, or amplifying minor differences to cause contention.

The countercult ministries depend on creating conflict to survive and I think its sad. Anyway, sorry about the long rant. You did a good job Walker, I hope you got through to somebody when they saw how he reacted to your call.

[thatjimguy]

I was curious if Shawn McCraney had ever gotten around to reading the information I provided him on the Divine Council. I shot him an email to see if he had. Here is his response in its entirety:

Out of fairness, can we see your email that you sent to him please?

[Sargon]

Great job Walker. After watching the video, Shawn really did seem flustered. I don't know why he got all worked up over the fact that you posted a transcript of the exchange, since anyone can watch it at his own website anyway.

[Zakuska]

I'm with LOAP, Perhaps we should all learn some Wisdom from this interaction:

Proverbs 9

1 Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars:

2 She hath killed her beasts; she hath mingled her wine; she hath also furnished her table.

3 She hath sent forth her maidens: she crieth upon the highest places of the city,

4 Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: as for him that wanteth understanding, she saith to him,

5 Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled.

6 Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.

7 He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot.

8 Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

9 Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser: teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

11 For by me thy days shall be multiplied, and the years of thy life shall be increased.

12 If thou be wise, thou shalt be wise for thyself: but if thou scornest, thou alone shalt bear it.

13

[WalkerW]

Personally I think you would have been better off walking away with a little more dignity. McCraney is clearly not capable of engaging in the scholarship, but no need to cast aspersions his way.

I know. I'm bad. Though I didn't become sarcastic until he started calling me "unfair," "insecure," and "intellectually dishonest" for no real reason. But nonetheless, I probably should have left it alone. Sorry! Couldn't help it!

[WalkerW]

Out of fairness, can we see your email that you sent to him please?

Sure:

Shawn,

> Was wondering if you've read the information I provided. Haven't

> heard back from you.

>

> Walker

[jmordecai]

I have to say, Shawn does not appear to know that the current Hebrew Deuteronomy is a rewrite of an older one that does mention plural gods worshipping the God of Israel and a number of them by which number the nations were divided.

Cases in point are Deuteronomy 32:8-9 and 32:43, as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The older belief was replaced by a more strict monotheism that older texts do not evidence.

He'll just ignore your evidence, though...

Seems Lehi was also in the dark, attributing Deut to Moses (1 Ne 5:11,19:23).

Do you include the BoM texts in with "older texts do not evidence"?

[WalkerW]

Seems Lehi was also in the dark, attributing Deut to Moses (1 Ne 5:11,19:23).

Do you include the BoM texts in with "older texts do not evidence"?

Kevin Christensen answered this elsewhere:

Deuteronomy as we have it is a layered text. That is, it wasn't composed all at once, but it comes with layers of addition and editing. In various discussions here, Ben McGuire has described the case for a proto-Deuteronomy and has tentatively reported that all of the Deuteronomy quotes in the Book of Mormon come from the oldest texts.

FWIW, Kevin Barney has suggested that the reference to the "five" Books of Moses could be a translator gloss by Joseph Smith. That's a possibility, though not the only one. It could be a reference to the five Books of Moses is not revelation about the authorship of ever single word, but simply a traditional way of designating the collection. It used to be the fashion to claim that the P source was post Exilic, but Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? shows Jeremiah quoting/alluding to P, which makes it pre-Exilic. And the oldest Biblical now available are two silver scrolls from Jerusalem 600 BC which have quotations from Numbers on them. In an appendix to The Hidden Book of the Bible, Friedman argues against the notion of a post-Exilic composition of the Pentatech on grounds makes the case that many passages use archaic Hebrew. But he also admits to post-Exilic redaction. Jacob 4:14 seems to me to imply that some pre-Exilic redaction was happening.

The studies that I have read on the Deuteronomist reformers suggest that it was composed and/or transmitted by Northern Kingdom priests, who then brought it down to Jerusalem as refugees from the destruction of the Northern Kingdom.

We don't know when or by whom the Brass Plates were prepared, although there are some useful indications to show that they did not contain same text that comes down as the Masoretic Hebrew. For example, see Ben McGuire's FAIR paper comparing the David and Laban accounts. Also Noel Reynold's has a study in a By Study and By Faith volume arguing that the Book of Mormon text presupposes something like the Book of Moses, rather than Genesis.

In my essay in Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, I quoted Marvin Sweeny's case that Deuteronomy addresses the needs of the "people of the land" who installed Josiah into power, which suggests to me that Josiah tutors had more to do with Hilkiah's Book of the Law than did Josiah. Scholars have noted that there seem to be connections between Hezekiah's reform at the time of Isaiah, and Josiah's later reform.

It was John Sorenson who originally observed that the Book of Mormon shows characteristics associated with the E source, which means a Northern Kingdom origin. Steve St. Clair used to have an online paper taking that a bit further.

In the 1998 Isaiah in the Book of Mormon volume, John W. Welch suggested that the Brass Plates were prepared for King Josiah's coronation. I've subsequently suggested that they were prepared during the reign of Jehoiakim, after Josiah's death at the hands of the Egyptians. I see them as have been prepared during a period when the Reformers were in some disarray, not for Josiah, but for the Egyptian library in the same way that the Septuaguint was later done for a later Egyptian King. On the other hand, in my reading of Brant's Second Witness, he seems to see Sherem's arguments as having come from his exposure to a reformed version Israelite religion as preserved on the Brass plates. I've suggested that Sherem could be a Mulekite trader. Given the state of the evidence, opinions can and do differ.

Given the state of the evidence, it's premature to ask for final answers, so the best we can do is to try and raise the kinds of issues that must be accounted for by a viable theory.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA