The Bible Answer Man

[LDSGuy]

I have to admit that on occasion while driving I listen to "The Bible Answer Man" program. I have a few reasons for listening. Some of the programming is descent with Christian related topics, and defending Christianinty if general. There are many things I agree with and many things I do not. Of the many things that I disagree with, are those topics that deal with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Either Hank Hanegraff is misinformed, ignorant, or lies. May be a combination of all three. In any case he misrepresents the churches doctrines on many issues and brings up "obscure" comments from past General Authorities, which are not considered official doctrines or official stances of the church. When such things are brought up from time to time by Hank, members of the church (well-intentioned) call in to defend their most sacred beliefs and to hopefully set the record straight.

Unfortunately many of the Saints who call in do not do the church any justice, and are unable to answer the questions adequately. They often make the church's position seem worse than what Hank does. Who was it that said that "it is better to let people think you are and idiot, than to open your mouth and prove them right." And, I mean that is reference to Hank. I am grateful that members call in to correct misconceptions and/or lies. However, I feel that at times, that if you are ill equiped to answer questions people should avoid picking up the phone.

I drove home the other day beating on the steering wheel because of one callers inadequacy. I don't remember the question, but he was not answering the question being asked, but kept avoiding it by giving a totally different answer that did not pertain to the question. Just today I heard a man call in to defend the church with regard to the blacks and the priesthood. While he didn't do a horrible job of defending the church, he did some harm. He mentioned the priesthood band being a "curse" that was lifted. I would have chosen my words more carefully. When asked if that was his position, that blacks were cursed, he had to backpeddle and restate his position. These are just a few examples.

Another annoyance of mine are members responding with, "well we just have differing opinions." I believe that is an understatement. And it is a cop out, by dodging the questions being asked or the statements being made.

I have my reasons for not calling. One of which is limited minutes on my phone. I hope that if I did call in, I would defend the Church and its doctrines well, and I that I would be worthy of the companionship of the Holy Ghost to help me have the words that I should say as I needed them.

What are your opinions?

[Mudcat]

What are your opinions?

I have called into Hank's show a couple of times. I got on once and lost my connection another time (cell phone).

I am an EV, but like you.. I have a mixed bag sort of feeling about Hank.

That being said, Hank does have call screeners, just like any credible radio show host of note. I speculate, but I imagine the purpose of these screeners is to keep the show exciting and to keep up their boss' image.

To distance myself from the immediate scenario. Let me posit another.

Rush Limbaugh has a conservative radio show. Say.. three liberals call in on a specific issue. The screeners feel one of the three is really a dufus, one moderately informed, and the last is well informed, highly articulate and so forth. Which one goes on the show?

If you do ever decide to go on, my advice would be to appear to be an LDS who is a little mixed up about the facts... , until you actually get on air. It would probably be a good experience for all.

Good luck with that.

edit add..

Rob Bowman, a poster here, used to work with Hank at CRI and could likely give you some insight on the matter.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Mudcat

[Ron Beron]

I have to admit that on occasion while driving I listen to "The Bible Answer Man" program. I have a few reasons for listening. Some of the programming is descent with Christian related topics, and defending Christianinty if general. There are many things I agree with and many things I do not. Of the many things that I disagree with, are those topics that deal with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Either Hank Hanegraff is misinformed, ignorant, or lies. May be a combination of all three. In any case he misrepresents the churches doctrines on many issues and brings up "obscure" comments from past General Authorities, which are not considered official doctrines or official stances of the church. When such things are brought up from time to time by Hank, members of the church (well-intentioned) call in to defend their most sacred beliefs and to hopefully set the record straight.

Unfortunately many of the Saints who call in do not do the church any justice, and are unable to answer the questions adequately. They often make the church's position seem worse than what Hank does. Who was it that said that "it is better to let people think you are and idiot, than to open your mouth and prove them right." And, I mean that is reference to Hank. I am grateful that members call in to correct misconceptions and/or lies. However, I feel that at times, that if you are ill equiped to answer questions people should avoid picking up the phone.

I drove home the other day beating on the steering wheel because of one callers inadequacy. I don't remember the question, but he was not answering the question being asked, but kept avoiding it by giving a totally different answer that did not pertain to the question. Just today I heard a man call in to defend the church with regard to the blacks and the priesthood. While he didn't do a horrible job of defending the church, he did some harm. He mentioned the priesthood band being a "curse" that was lifted. I would have chosen my words more carefully. When asked if that was his position, that blacks were cursed, he had to backpeddle and restate his position. These are just a few examples.

Another annoyance of mine are members responding with, "well we just have differing opinions." I believe that is an understatement. And it is a cop out, by dodging the questions being asked or the statements being made.

I have my reasons for not calling. One of which is limited minutes on my phone. I hope that if I did call in, I would defend the Church and its doctrines well, and I that I would be worthy of the companionship of the Holy Ghost to help me have the words that I should say as I needed them.

What are your opinions?

I have listened extensively to both Mr. H and his predecessor, Walter Martin. Hank plays fast and loose with the truth and when I have called him on it on Facebook, my posting was immediately taken down. This is what I posted...

1. Mr. Hanegraaff states he used "Mormon Doctrine" by McConkie as an "authoritative official" doctrine of the church in stating a position in regards to the Mormon concept of the pre-existence. While recognizing that Bro. McConkie was an official in the Mormon Church, his book, Mormon Doctrine was never accepted as authoritative or official by or in the church. In fact, it had proved to be an embarrassment to Mr. McConkie because he was not accepted as approved by the Reading Committee of the church. If Mr. Hanegraaff wishes to criticize the LDS church then finding more appropriate doctrines should be found.

Part 2... Mr. Hanegraaff also stated the the Bible has been proved authentic by archaeology and anthropology. This is only partially true. Much of the Bible is indeed been validated by archaeological discoveries, but on many levels disagrees with modern archaeological events, e.g., the Exodus within Canaanite Israel. Only one city among the many mentioned in Exodus has been verified as extant during the ostensible occupation: Hazor. Again, a slight modification to Mr. Hanegraaff

A number of chaplains I work with also have a low opinion of him since he seems to dish out criticism of many within his own belief structure. One particular problem I had with him was when a sister called in and began to answer him with some gusto which he quickly spoke over and continue to blather with nonsensical diatribe until the time ran out. I believe there is much we can gain from working with our EV brothers, Mudcat, for example, and people like Hank just ruins the whole situation. How can we work effectively against the evils of the world when we cannot even get our moral and ethical allies to work with us?

Edited October 10, 2011 by Ron Beron

[LeSellers]

Either Hank Hanegraff is misinformed, ignorant, or lies. May be a combination of all three.

...

What are your opinions?

He's not ignorant, nor is he misinformed (unless by design, in which case it isn't truly either).

Lehi

[Storm Rider]

Arrogance at its worst. He claims to be the source of all Bible answers i.e. "he" knows the truth. Unfortunately, he is a very poor source for Bible answers. I used to listen to him quite often, but that was years ago. Nowadays, I tend to listen sporadically to EWTN shows. Sometimes, I am just looking for radio shows that bring the Spirit. None of them are perfect, but I do enjoy well produced shows.

[LDSGuy]

I have called into Hank's show a couple of times. I got on once and lost my connection another time (cell phone).

I am an EV, but like you.. I have a mixed bag sort of feeling about Hank.

That being said, Hank does have call screeners, just like any credible radio show host of note. I speculate, but I imagine the purpose of these screeners is to keep the show exciting and to keep up their boss' image.

To distance myself from the immediate scenario. Let me posit another.

Rush Limbaugh has a conservative radio show. Say.. three liberals call in on a specific issue. The screeners feel one of the three is really a dufus, one moderately informed, and the last is well informed, highly articulate and so forth. Which one goes on the show?

If you do ever decide to go on, my advice would be to appear to be an LDS who is a little mixed up about the facts... , until you actually get on air. It would probably be a good experience for all.

Good luck with that.

edit add..

Rob Bowman, a poster here, used to work with Hank at CRI and could likely give you some insight on the matter.

I'm sure that you're right about how they screen the calls to the show. Mr. Hanegraaf probably does not believe pitting best against best, since he always sets up strawmen.

[wenglund]

Hank's show has been on for decades, and with all the LDS callers and writers, both good and bad, he has heard from during that time, I have yet to see him change his negative portrayal of the Church even in the slightest. For as long as he continues with the show, rest assured that he will continue to recycle the same old propaganda, and nothing any LDS caller may say will likely change that.

The good news is, it is doubtful that his propaganda will have a permanent affect on the honest seekers after Christ, and he is drawing attention to the Church and piquing people's interest.

So, I wouldn't fuss and fret over what you may hear on his show. Life is to short and it isn't healthy or in our interest to grant Hank much if any control over our emotions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mudcat]

I'm sure that you're right about how they screen the calls to the show. Mr. Hanegraaf probably does not believe pitting best against best, since he always sets up strawmen.

I used to like his show, though in general, his intention seems more geared to how the Bible answers his particular theological view.

The one time I spoke with him, "Mormonism" seem to be the pet topic of the day, its been a few years.. but. IIRC I prefaced my question to him by saying. Was that it seemed to me that there were a lot of people that we call Christian that have some very broad views and then asked if he thought LDS could be members of the CoJCoLDS and also be "saved".

He responded that he thought this was possible, but also thought such a situation would ultimately lead them from the false teachings of "Mormonism" to a more mainstream type faith.

I am paraphrasing in some places as I don't remember the conversation in detail.. just the general just of it.

I don't imaging LDS would find that comment particularly flattering, but IMO the fact that he seems to draw a distinction between the teachings of what he thinks "Mormonism" teaches and actual LDS individuals is broader and more favorable than many would promote, is a good thing.

I have lost interest in him for the most part, there was a bit of a financial scandal about his ministry a few years back. Nothing illegal mind you, but it appeared to me that he had let the financial success of his ministry bleed over a bit into his personal life. Poor stewardship, is a pet peeve of mine I suppose.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Mudcat

[Calm]

It is not an uncommon idea that if LDS are true Christians, that the Spirit will eventually lead them out of this false religion and into the true faith. It certainly sounds better than assuming that LDS are automatically going to hell.

We talk about people bringing the good that they have learnt in their original faith and adding to it from ours when they join the Church. We also believe that those who are sincere seekers of the truth will eventually be led to the Gospel as is taught in the LDS faith, whether in this life or the next so it seems to me that it's pretty much the same thing, the only real difference being that we don't claim that their original faith is nonChristian if they claim to be Christian----and it is a big one to my mind as the title "Christian" means a lot to me personally as well in the context of my church.

I've read some of his emails and his appeals for money seem often manipulative....it does not leave me with a pleasant taste, so to speak. If someone wants something from me, I'd much rather they simply ask rather then play games and I think it very wrong to overdramatize or sentimental appeals to pity to get money from others who may need it as much as you do. Better if you are asking to be up front about why and what, then they will be willing to turn money over being assured that it is being used in a good cause and being used prudently.

Edited October 10, 2011 by calmoriah

[LDSGuy]

I heard something about a financial scandal and Hank Hanegraaf. I understand that he has a listener supported program. It seems he has lost some of his listeners though, due to his inability to state the truth. "Truth matters" is the tag line for the show, but it doesn't seem like that is always the case. Should members even bother with calling in to correct lies and misinformation? Or should we stand back and watch it build up people's curiosity about the church?

Wasn't it Moroni that told Joseph Smith that the more people that fought against the church, the more it would grow?

I also remember this quote from a Brad Wilcox talk entitled "HOGMET: What to do when they say it isn't true." He said that

Benjamin Franklin had a friend with him during his time as an ambassador in Europe for the newly formed United States. Often B. Franklin and his friend would hear negative things about the newly formed nation and how it was doomed for failure. Whenever Ben got discouraged his friend would remind him that, "whenever I see boys in a field throwing rocks at a tree, I know that it has fruit on it, or they would just leave it alone." I believe there is truth to that.

[boblloyd91]

Good points. Let's also remember who Henegraaf's friends are. He wrote the foreward to a work by Ed Decker (I don't think ti was Godmakers but another book about Mormonism). He also is running the CRI, which was founded by Dr. Walter Martin, so that gives us an idea of his attitude towards others who have different views then himself

[Jesterss]

Part 2... Mr. Hanegraaff also stated the the Bible has been proved authentic by archaeology and anthropology. This is only partially true. Much of the Bible is indeed been validated by archaeological discoveries, but on many levels disagrees with modern archaeological events, e.g., the Exodus within Canaanite Israel. Only one city among the many mentioned in Exodus has been verified as extant during the ostensible occupation: Hazor. Again, a slight modification to Mr. Hanegraaff

Have you ever watched a show something along the lines of "mountain of fire".. I think that's the name of it, but it's quite interesting...

Basically, where the catholics claim that mount sinai is, is false. (One of many of my reasons not to follow the catholic church). Anyway, the real location, which I believe after watching this documentary and ones played on the History channel. Give a very accurate depiction of Jabal Al Laws being the actual mount sinai location. In Saudi Arabia.. Follows biblical mentionings to the T.

Edit: you can YouTube mountain of fire and watch it... about 50 minutes long.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Jesterss

[altersteve]

Have you ever watched a show something along the lines of "mountain of fire".. I think that's the name of it, but it's quite interesting...

Basically, where the catholics claim that mount sinai is, is false. (One of many of my reasons not to follow the catholic church). Anyway, the real location, which I believe after watching this documentary and ones played on the History channel. Give a very accurate depiction of Jabal Al Laws being the actual mount sinai location. In Saudi Arabia.. Follows biblical mentionings to the T.

Edit: you can YouTube mountain of fire and watch it... about 50 minutes long.

The existence of Mount Sinai does not prove that the Exodus actually happened anymore than the existence of Jerusalem proves that the Resurrection actually happened.

[Jesterss]

The existence of Mount Sinai does not prove that the Exodus actually happened anymore than the existence of Jerusalem proves that the Resurrection actually happened.

Perhaps you should watch the video before making such claims.. It's pretty compelling evidence really. And since you are a believer. Perhaps you would find it as cool as I do. The biblical writings of exodus match this place and path remarkably well.

If comparing this evidence to the evidence of Jesus and the Resurrection, finds no merit in you, perhaps you aren't as big of a believer as you claim.

[thesometimesaint]

We are to be wise as serpants but gentler than doves. Some members unfortunately reverse that.

Edited October 10, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Jesterss:

Belief(Faith) is one thing, physical evidence is usually quite another.

[Jesterss]

Jesterss:

Belief(Faith) is one thing, physical evidence is usually quite another.

But the quote I referenced was speaking on behalf of archeological references. Which I posted. And Jabal Al Lawz is very accurate from an archeological standpoint.

[altersteve]

Perhaps you should watch the video before making such claims.. It's pretty compelling evidence really. And since you are a believer. Perhaps you would find it as cool as I do. The biblical writings of exodus match this place and path remarkably well.

If comparing this evidence to the evidence of Jesus and the Resurrection, finds no merit in you, perhaps you aren't as big of a believer as you claim.

I've seen the video, and I think it's very fascinating and very compelling. But I don't believe in something because of archaeology, I believe it because of what God has revealed to me personally. I believe the Exodus happened because God Himself has revealed to me that the biblical account about the Exodus is true, just as I believe Jesus is the Christ because God has revealed to me that He is. A witness from God Himself is stronger than any sort of archaeological evidence. As a believer, you should know that.

[Jesterss]

I've seen the video, and I think it's very fascinating and very compelling. But I don't believe in something because of archaeology, I believe it because of what God has revealed to me personally. I believe the Exodus happened because God Himself has revealed to me that the biblical account about the Exodus is true, just as I believe Jesus is the Christ because God has revealed to me that He is. A witness from God Himself is stronger than any sort of archaeological evidence. As a believer, you should know that.

But you totally discredit the fact that it is archeological evidence from your prior statement. And not only that, it gives even more credence to the book of exodus. And to say that you have a personal witness from God is interesting. But then again, our faiths will contradict this notion as well. So to address it from a pure believer standpoint, it is nice to see these things. I think God revealed this stuff to us to give us even more excitement at times.

[wenglund]

But you totally discredit the fact that it is archeological evidence from your prior statement. And not only that, it gives even more credence to the book of exodus. And to say that you have a personal witness from God is interesting. But then again, our faiths will contradict this notion as well. So to address it from a pure believer standpoint, it is nice to see these things. I think God revealed this stuff to us to give us even more excitement at times.

With that in mind, you may be interested to learn that there is far more archeological evidence for the D&C than for the Bible.

Should I send the missionaries?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 10, 2011 by wenglund

[Jesterss]

With that in mind, you may be interested to learn that there is far more archeological evidence for the D&C than for the Bible.

I could write a book right now that had far more archeological evidence than the BOM... anyone can write for their time.

Should I send the missionaries?

Already had about 5. My In-Laws are all Mormon. I stumped the missionaries and they couldn't come up with an answer. They decided it was best if they didn't come back.

Thanks though.

[thesometimesaint]

Jesters:

The distance from Egypt to what is now Saudi Arabia would be problematic to say the least.

[Jesterss]

Jesters:

The distance from Egypt to what is now Saudi Arabia would be problematic to say the least.

Why is that? Brigham Young lead people across much rougher terrain for a much larger distance and made it.

[altersteve]

But you totally discredit the fact that it is archeological evidence from your prior statement. And not only that, it gives even more credence to the book of exodus. And to say that you have a personal witness from God is interesting. But then again, our faiths will contradict this notion as well. So to address it from a pure believer standpoint, it is nice to see these things. I think God revealed this stuff to us to give us even more excitement at times.

I don't discredit anything. All I said was that no amount of archaeological evidence found by mere human beings can or will prove anything in the Bible. Proving that the scriptures are true, and that Jesus is the Christ, is the Holy Ghost's job. Knowing by the power of God is how Peter believed and it's how I believe. Feel free to believe based on mere archaeological evidence if you wish.

[Jesterss]

I don't discredit anything. All I said was that no amount of archaeological evidence found by mere human beings can or will prove anything in the Bible. Proving that the scriptures are true, and that Jesus is the Christ, is the Holy Ghost's job. Knowing by the power of God is how Peter believed and it's how I believe. Feel free to believe based on mere archaeological evidence if you wish.

and I never said I believe based on archeological evidence. Just that it gives me a good feeling. as I suppose going to church on sunday does for you. It's just added proof for his existence that I think is awesome.