Shawn McCraney on Book of Mormon Historicity

[kolipoki09]

Given the recent discussions relative to the historicity of the Book of Abraham, I thought it might be useful to mention something that occurred in my life a few months ago as this issue pertains to the Book of Mormon. As General Conference is right around the corner (the treasure trove for quote miners), I thought I might bring something up that has been "trending" in certain fringes of the countercult community.

A fundamentalist Protestant friend of mine (who has on occasion posted on this board) linked

to his Facebook page making a rather bold claim about something Elder Russell M. Nelson allegedly said.

McCRANEY: I thought you would find this quote from M. Russell Nelson (sic) in the Priesthood Session quite ironic. Nelson said quote: 'You can invite a friend to read the Book of Mormon. Explain that it is not a novel, or a historical book.' You can find that on lds.org. You see, you know what they're doing now, is they're going to get away. Because evidence is going to show more and more that it is not a historical book. The Bible--a historical book that you can trust. God works through reality, not through dreams and fanciful visions. They are more and more finding that that Book of Mormon is going to be under scrutiny, so you have an Apostle saying 'share the Book of Mormon, but make sure you tell them--not a novel, and it's not a historical book.' What would that make it? It would make it fiction, or a revelation? And they're probably going to rely more and more on the idea that Joseph Smith received revelation about this book, rather than it actually being a literal, historical event, which is what they taught me, and showed me, and actually you know showed me maps and stuff of where everything happened. Not anymore.

Unfortunately, McCraney deliberately changed the wording of Elder Nelson's statements to fit his premise which he wants to be true, but isn't. Here's what Elder Nelson actually said:

NELSON: You can invite a friend to read the Book of Mormon. Explain that it is not a novel or a history book. It is another testament of Jesus Christ. Its very purpose is

[Rivers]

The church is not moving away from believing the Book of Mormon as historical. Elder Nelson was simply saying that we shouldn't focus too much on the historical aspect. We need to keep or focus on the spiritual aspects of the Book of Mormon. Knowing where Zarahemla was isn't important to our eternal progression. General authorities just don't say much about this sort of thing these days.

Shawn McCraney seems to spend a lot time looking for any possible criticism of the church possible.

I think it is best to not focus on the historicity of the book. When I try to focus on the Book of Mormon's histirocity, I always get confused. There are so many things that I don't understand. But I don't want to stop believing because I don't understand certain things.

Even though there are many unanswered questions, the guys at FARMS and FAIR have made some interesting observations.

[pcarthew]

McCraney is an entertainer. He is a feather weight when it comes to anything but light un-researched dross that he turns out on his self aggrandising rant. He often only mocks, and is a quote miner from way back. He arrogantly has portrayed some of the best members of our church as bumbling serfs mindlessly following each other to hell. I doubt, apart from the most profound bigot, that anyone LDS or not who had 1/2 a brain would not pay the slightest attention to McCraney and his weekly rant. Quite frankly I have watched him a few times and he is so poorly researched on just about everything, I actually feel embarrassed for him and anyone who is foolish enough to take him for anything better than a try-hard 'C' grade entertainer!

If you turned the volume down and just watched you could be forgiven for thinking he was auditioning for the next "crusty the clown" character on the Simpson's!

[Jeff K.]

The church is not moving away from believing the Book of Mormon as historical. Elder Nelson was simply saying that we shouldn't focus too much on the historical aspect. We need to keep or focus on the spiritual aspects of the Book of Mormon. Knowing where Zarahemla was isn't important to our eternal progression. General authorities just don't say much about this sort of thing these days.

Shawn McCraney seems to spend a lot time looking for any possible criticism of the church possible.

I think it is best to not focus on the historicity of the book. When I try to focus on the Book of Mormon's histirocity, I always get confused. There are so many things that I don't understand. But I don't want to stop believing because I don't understand certain things.

Even though there are many unanswered questions, the guys at FARMS and FAIR have made some interesting observations.

I think the correct nuance would be that the Book of Mormon should not be considered a "history book" but was considered historically an accurate reflection of a lost people. And I agree, it is best not to focus on the historicity, that is not why it was written, just as it is not the focus of the Old and New Testament.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Shawn McCraney's commentary on anything has not weight behind it at all, IMO. He is a hate filled man who will blatantly lie in order to try and make his point, you cannot trust someone like this even as far as you can throw him.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

As described eariler, McCraney is a circus clown. I love how he believes that if he can scream louder then the caller, that he has won the debate.

[LDS Guy 1986]

As described eariler, McCraney is a circus clown. I love how he believes that if he can scream louder then the caller, that he has won the debate.

Wait you mean that decibel level of your voice is not the final determination of victory in a debate!!!!

Well there when my perception that I was undefeated on the High School debate time all 4 years!

[Hughes]

Given the recent discussions relative to the historicity of the Book of Abraham, I thought it might be useful to mention something that occurred in my life a few months ago as this issue pertains to the Book of Mormon. As General Conference is right around the corner (the treasure trove for quote miners), I thought I might bring something up that has been "trending" in certain fringes of the countercult community.

A fundamentalist Protestant friend of mine (who has on occasion posted on this board) linked

to his Facebook page making a rather bold claim about something Elder Russell M. Nelson allegedly said.

Unfortunately, McCraney deliberately changed the wording of Elder Nelson's statements to fit his premise which he wants to be true, but isn't. Here's what Elder Nelson actually said:

This reminds me of something Truman Madsen wrote in 1996:

Incidentally, I wonder how much McCraney's scrutiny of the Book of Mormon would stand up to the Bible? Are the same standards of criticism being raised against the Book of Mormon being applied to the Bible?

It should be noted that when I addressed this issue with my Protestant friend, he removed the link from his profile and apologized. Nevertheless, the video is still being tossed around. Is McCraney right? Are we Mormons really moving away from a historical approach to the Book of Mormon? With the exception of a few publications authored by relatively unknown authors (in the LDS community), I would suggest that the very opposite is occurring.

Your thoughts?

Seems to me that McCraney quoted accurately, just not as fully as you'd like.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Seems to me that McCraney quoted accurately, just not as fully as you'd like.

How can you say that? He clearly changed the word to give a different impression. Seems you have no idea what "accurately" means.

[Hughes]

How can you say that? He clearly changed the word to give a different impression. Seems you have no idea what "accurately" means.

NELSON: You can invite a friend to read the Book of Mormon. Explain that it is not a novel or a history book.

McCRANEY: Nelson said quote: 'You can invite a friend to read the Book of Mormon. Explain that it is not a novel, or a historical book.'

So, you think that changing history to historical is a huge difference?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

NELSON: You can invite a friend to read the Book of Mormon. Explain that it is not a novel or a history book.

McCRANEY: Nelson said quote: 'You can invite a friend to read the Book of Mormon. Explain that it is not a novel, or a historical book.'

So, you think that changing history to historical is a huge difference?

The obvious answer, and the answer you know, is "YES!". Take off your anti-Mormon blinders for 3 seconds.

[LDS Guy 1986]

NELSON: You can invite a friend to read the Book of Mormon. Explain that it is not a novel or a history book.

McCRANEY: Nelson said quote: 'You can invite a friend to read the Book of Mormon. Explain that it is not a novel, or a historical book.'

So, you think that changing history to historical is a huge difference?

Seeing that there is a big difference between the two words yes.

his

[scooby]

a non-history book can still be true and even contain history. a non-historical book cannot be true.

[Hughes]

[kolipoki09]

NELSON: You can invite a friend to read the Book of Mormon. Explain that it is not a novel or a history book.

McCRANEY: Nelson said quote: 'You can invite a friend to read the Book of Mormon. Explain that it is not a novel, or a historical book.'

So, you think that changing history to historical is a huge difference?

Actually, yes, I do. McCraney's entire diatribe is devoted to the premise that the book is not historical rather than fitting the format of a history book.

To say that it is not a history book is entirely different than claiming that the book is not representative of actual historical events.

McCraney misrepresented Elder Nelson's position, and by-so-doing has created a strawman argument (something he's no stranger to, as illustrated in Blair Hodge's review of his book).

In the mean time Hughes, unless you plan on contributing something of substance to this discussion, you won't be contributing to this thread anymore.

[Nathair/|\]

Bob "Wolf" Vookman has effectively shown why nobody takes McCraney seriously.

[Rivers]

The lack of intelligent people that call in or are allowed to call in shows how much of an amateur McCraney is.

[LDS Guy 1986]

In the mean time Hughes, unless you plan on contributing something of substance to this discussion, you won't be contributing to this thread anymore.

*In 50's tv show announcer voice*

Could we of found a moderators alt?

Is kolipki09 making a idol threat?

What will happen next?

Tune in next week kids to find out in our next exciting episode!

[Hughes]

In the mean time Hughes, unless you plan on contributing something of substance to this discussion, you won't be contributing to this thread anymore.

I ask a simple question (because I honestly couldn't see the problem) and I'm not contributing something substantive to the discussion because I disagree with your conclusions?

Oh well. So sorry that I didn't contribute anything of substance.

[LDS Guy 1986]

The lack of intelligent people that call in or are allowed to call in shows how much of an amateur McCraney is.

McCraney is as stated previously a King of the Strawman argument, he can win every time if he set's up those strawmen, the really disappointing thing is there is actually people out there who watch his show and can't see how much of a amateur he is.

The best part of McCraney's show is that from what I have been told it had gotten more people to convert to the LDS Church than it has gotten members to leave, so Shawn is accidentally a LDS missionary because he is such a failure as an Anti-Mormon. I don't know if this is fact or fiction, but it is what I have been told.

Any confirming sources or opposing sources are welcomed!

[kolipoki09]

From WalkerW's interactions with McCraney:

http://walkstar.blogspot.com/2009/11/heart-of-matter.html

http://walkstar.blogspot.com/2009/11/mccraney-strikes-back.html

[kolipoki09]

[DOUBLE POST}

[LDS Guy 1986]

I ask a simple question (because I honestly couldn't see the problem) and I'm not contributing something substantive to the discussion because I disagree with your conclusions?

Without any supporting evidence you are not contributing one bit to anything except the massive headaches of the poor moderators, and simply stating that we are wrong and you are right without addressing the valid counter points brought up, is not honest at all, as well as a violation of forum rules.

[WalkerW]

From WalkerW's interactions with McCraney:

http://walkstar.blog...-of-matter.html

http://walkstar.blog...rikes-back.html

I tried calling in again about a year later. But I didn't get through.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I tried calling in again about a year later. But I didn't get through.

WalkerW = banned from Shawn's show for life!