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

[Tacenda]

I have watched several of the Heart of the Matter shows on bornagainmormon.com. Whether anyone would like to admit it or not he has had some affect on the LDS and has brought quite a few out of the church. Granted, LDS members that may have been like me, social in the church and not really into the doctrines etc. until some things come up, had no idea of JS's particular polygamy, are easily prusuaded.

In his show he goes over and over on the born again commandment. That we should be born again on top of baptism at eight or whatever age. I'm, like my tag line says, a middle wayer. Do I jump the fence and go to his side of logic or do I stay LDS because that would be so much easier for my life. And LDS are my life! Some of the best people on this planet are mormon, help!!

But...when he brings up the scripture...Matthew 19:29 And everyone that has forsaken houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. Again a stumbling block.

Also, as many on here have told me to do, to pray to get that witness, I then get the "not to trust my feelings" scripture as in Romans 10:17 - Faith comes from hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Faith does not come by feelings or by praying for emotional experiences. Again another stumbling block..

Finally, to get to the gist of my post, Shawn McRaney said on the show that he's asked for Scott Gordon from FAIR to come on the show, or any scholar or apologist. And even commented he would leave the building and give the whole one hour show to the scholar, apologist or even better a GA.

Would any of you please offer an answer as to why no one is showing up for this proposition of his?

If people are out there watching the show and not seeing two sides, just his side, shouldn't someone be the apologist, defender of your faith. People like me (kind of weak) need you. Yet all we hear are birds chirping. Seeing & hearing may be a nice addition to just reading the words.

Thank you sorry for the long post!

Edited July 5, 2012 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

Tacenda:

I give it all the attention it deserves.

[HiJolly]

Would any of you please offer an answer as to why no one is showing up for this proposition of his?

If people are out there watching the show and not seeing two sides, just his side, shouldn't someone be the apologist, defender of your faith. People like me (kind of weak) need you. Yet all we hear are birds chirping. Seeing & hearing may be a nice addition to just reading the words.

No one should show up on McCraney's show because it's *his* show. I loved the Mormon Stories interview -- it really helped me understand the man. He is not a theologian, he's not a scholar -- he is an entertainer with a message. Scott is a great guy and smart and knows his stuff, but he'd be like a regular candle next to a huge professional firework that goes 200 feet into the air. There's no way he could do any good in that forum.

It would have to be moderated and on at least neutral ground to make any sense at all. And even then, the viewer would need to appreciate scholarship as much as showmanship, to make it even. Not going to happen, IMO.

HiJolly

Edited July 5, 2012 by HiJolly

[wenglund]

There are a myriad of insignificant naysayer like McRaney out there that have come and gone over the years. As such, I don't know what value there would be in LDS apologists giving attention to his particular dog and pony show. In a way, it would endow him and his show with undue credence.

To be honest, I had never heard of the guy until someone mentioned him here awhile back. And, while I watched some of his video presentation, it didn't strike me as worthy of concern or response. I say leave each to their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 5, 2012 by wenglund

[DBMormon]

Tacenda,

The trouble is that with this kind of setup where a debate or discussion occurs where two sides defend a position is difficult. Here is why. One side has to defend it's position against all other possibilities while the other side only has to sow doubt by moving from point to point.

That may sound confusing so I will try to say it another way. If if you were going to debate the position of whether or not Albert Einstein was the smartest man in the world ever. And even if he was it becomes the much more difficult and problematic to prove and uphold that he is then to take the side of tearing him down and exposing his every weakness. It is a almost impossible position to defend and come out looking like the winner. While Einstein has every weakness and flaw exposed other really intelligent individuals that are in the running go unscathed.

What would make these types of debates better is if instead of debating mormonism we simply debated specific doctrines and both sides could challenge each other. That would be more fair though still proves nothing.

[LoudmouthMormon]

In his show he goes over and over on the born again commandment. That we should be born again on top of baptism at eight or whatever age.

I was baptised at age 8, but wasn't 'born again' (i.e. actually obtained a testimony of the reality and divinity of Jesus Christ and an unmistakable spiritual confirmation about the truth claims of the church) until I was 26 and had been inactive for 6 years. So yeah, I know what the guy is talking about, and it's the same thing our church talks about when we're hearing about testimonies and broken hearts and contrite spirits and such.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda,

The trouble is that with this kind of setup where a debate or discussion occurs where two sides defend a position is difficult. Here is why. One side has to defend it's position against all other possibilities while the other side only has to sow doubt by moving from point to point.

That may sound confusing so I will try to say it another way. If if you were going to debate the position of whether or not Albert Einstein was the smartest man in the world ever. And even if he was it becomes the much more difficult and problematic to prove and uphold that he is then to take the side of tearing him down and exposing his every weakness. It is a almost impossible position to defend and come out looking like the winner. While Einstein has every weakness and flaw exposed other really intelligent individuals that are in the running go unscathed.

What would make these types of debates better is if instead of debating mormonism we simply debated specific doctrines and both sides could challenge each other. That would be more fair though still proves nothing.

I think that would be great if they debated specific doctrines. Nothing to do with individuals or religions, per say.

[rpn]

Being born again is just another way of saying His image in our countenance.

And no one can seriously believe that the host of a show or its producers wouldn't censor and/or stage questions and/or otherwise keep control of the show. They would have to because it is their license on the line for what happens during it.

[Tacenda]

Being born again is just another way of saying His image in our countenance.

And no one can seriously believe that the host of a show or its producers wouldn't censor and/or stage questions and/or otherwise keep control of the show. They would have to because it is their license on the line for what happens during it.

Makes sense to me. I think you're right, the only way it would work, is on neutral ground.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Tacenda

[selek1]

And no one can seriously believe that the host of a show or its producers wouldn't censor and/or stage questions and/or otherwise keep control of the show. They would have to because it is their license on the line for what happens during it.

Not simply their (broadcast) license, but their cachet and credibility with their audience.

McCraney's audience (and Dehlin's, and so on, and so on) are not there for the discussion, but for the spectacle. (Ironically, that's the main draw of the Trailer Park and a lot of the ex-Mormon boards).

They are not there to have their prejudices and presumptions challenged, but rather to have them reinforced.

The moment that the show moves from "bread and circuses" to even the faintest possibility that the Mormons may be right, their audience (and advertisers) will abandon them.

McCraney's shtick is wholly encompassed in showing why his version of Christianity is correct (and all others are wrong).

A serious discussion a/o "fair fight" endangers that shtick and with it, McCraney's pocketbook.

What possible benefit can we expect from divulging and discussing the sacred in such an environment?

I think that would be great if they debated specific doctrines. Nothing to do with individuals or religions, per say.

The problem with this approach is two-fold: first, the "contentious" doctrine- those about which there are disagreement- are usually broken up along sectarian borders. Any discussion about which interpretation of doctrine is correct inescapably defaults to who holds that doctrine. They can only be argued- and only make sense- in context.

It's like trying to argue which side of the street is better without mentioning that the street has two sides (and who lives on them).

It simply can't be done in any depth or for any length of time.

Second, any such discussion will devolve into matters of interpretation, opinion, and worst of all, "tradition". If these things could be settled definitively, then the legions of brilliant theologians who populated the last two thousand years of history would have done so.

If thinkers and scholars such as C.S. Lewis and St. Thomas Aquinas have failed, then what chance does an agenda-driven hack like McCraney stand?

Is it at all reasonable to think that his audience- most of whom are egregiously Biblically illiterate- might do better?

Whom do you trust to have serious and substantive theological debates- serious, learned men or American Idol contestants?

Do you really think serious theological issues can be settled by people who think "Friday night rasslin'" is a genuine sport?

Edited July 5, 2012 by selek1

[DBMormon]

Do you really think serious theological issues can be settled by people who think "Friday night rasslin'" is a genuine sport?

WHHHHOOOOOAAAAAA....... are you telling me jimmy "Superfly" Snuka was not really fighting "Rowdy" Roddy Piper... that it was fake? ouch.... that hurt

[selek1]

WHHHHOOOOOAAAAAA....... are you telling me jimmy "Superfly" Snuka was not really fighting "Rowdy" Roddy Piper... that it was fake? ouch.... that hurt

Worse- can you guess how many of my immediate and extended family fall under that particular umbrella?

There's a reason FEMA won't approve plans for our family reunion...

Edited July 5, 2012 by selek1

[ERayR]

I have watched several of the Heart of the Matter shows on bornagainmormon.com. Whether anyone would like to admit it or not he has had some affect on the LDS and has brought quite a few out of the church. Granted, LDS members that may have been like me, social in the church and not really into the doctrines etc. until some things come up, had no idea of JS's particular polygamy, are easily prusuaded.

Tacenda let me be as gentle as possible. The refrain of "I had no idea of Joseph Smith's polygamy until ... and it really shook my faith" is really rather inane seeing as how the information has been there for almost 200 years and when you do get it, it is usually from a critic or ant-Mormon quoting a Mormon source. I came from a family that did not attend church regularly and I knew it even at a quite young age in a small town.

In his show he goes over and over on the born again commandment. That we should be born again on top of baptism at eight or whatever age. I'm, like my tag line says, a middle wayer. Do I jump the fence and go to his side of logic or do I stay LDS because that would be so much easier for my life. And LDS are my life! Some of the best people on this planet are mormon, help!!

But...when he brings up the scripture...Matthew 19:29 And everyone that has forsaken houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. Again a stumbling block.

The Evangelical born again thing is nothing more than the Mormon personal witness. The Moroni promise.

Matthew 19:29 is a promise that if one finds it necessary to forsake all that they find dear and important for their belief in Christ that they will be amply recompensed. I think that will hold for non-Mormon as well as Mormon.

Also, as many on here have told me to do, to pray to get that witness, I then get the "not to trust my feelings" scripture as in Romans 10:17 - Faith comes from hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Faith does not come by feelings or by praying for emotional experiences. Again another stumbling block..

As stated above the Moroni promise is what the Evangelicals describe as Born Again. If you are to reject the Moroni promise because of this scripture you must also reject the Evangelical Born again experience. However you can have your spiritual witness and faith according to this scripture. The spiritual witness comes by faith and this scripture tells you how to build faith so you can get your spiritual witness. If you havn't got it yet log off the boards and get out the scriptures.

Finally, to get to the gist of my post, Shawn McRaney said on the show that he's asked for Scott Gordon from FAIR to come on the show, or any scholar or apologist. And even commented he would leave the building and give the whole one hour show to the scholar, apologist or even better a GA.

Would any of you please offer an answer as to why no one is showing up for this proposition of his?

There is no reason to go on his show. One of the basic principles of warfare (and make no mistake this is a war for mens souls) is to never give up the high ground. To go on his show is to turn over control of the dialog to him. The show is his playground and he controls the dialog. No reason to go.

If people are out there watching the show and not seeing two sides, just his side, shouldn't someone be the apologist, defender of your faith. People like me (kind of weak) need you. Yet all we hear are birds chirping. Seeing & hearing may be a nice addition to just reading the words.

Thank you sorry for the long post!

Let him pose the questions and the members and missionarries will answer them in their homes and the homes of their interested friends. Much more effective than a bash with a mooth tounge who controls the dialog.

[Freedom]

But...when he brings up the scripture...Matthew 19:29 And everyone that has forsaken houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. Again a stumbling block.

Also, as many on here have told me to do, to pray to get that witness, I then get the "not to trust my feelings" scripture as in Romans 10:17 - Faith comes from hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Faith does not come by feelings or by praying for emotional experiences. Again another stumbling block..

You would have to explain why these are a stumbling block because I see these scriptures as completely consistent with LDS doctrine. You seem to be suggesting that the quote 'faith comes from hearing' is the complete definition of how faith is obtained. To do this, you must reject many other verses in the bible that says other principles are also required. It is like taking the verse that states we are saved by grace and adding the word 'alone' which is what many evangelical Christians tend to do.

It also begs the question: if faith is not a feeling, how does one know if they have attained it? How does one know if one is born again?

[Solitario]

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

Really?

This guy isn't even good at putting Mormons down. He is extremely pathetic defending Christianity he believes in. Couple years ago Van Hale invited him for a show, he failed miserably on defending his faith; Shawn would constantly repeat "Don't go there Van, we are not here discussing Christianity".

Shawn is good at dishing out but like Sandra Tanner they are not good defenders of their own faith.

[William Schryver]

I have watched several of the Heart of the Matter shows on bornagainmormon.com. Whether anyone would like to admit it or not he has had some affect on the LDS and has brought quite a few out of the church. Granted, LDS members that may have been like me, social in the church and not really into the doctrines etc. until some things come up, had no idea of JS's particular polygamy, are easily prusuaded.

In his show he goes over and over on the born again commandment. That we should be born again on top of baptism at eight or whatever age. I'm, like my tag line says, a middle wayer. Do I jump the fence and go to his side of logic or do I stay LDS because that would be so much easier for my life. And LDS are my life! Some of the best people on this planet are mormon, help!!

But...when he brings up the scripture...Matthew 19:29 And everyone that has forsaken houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. Again a stumbling block.

Also, as many on here have told me to do, to pray to get that witness, I then get the "not to trust my feelings" scripture as in Romans 10:17 - Faith comes from hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Faith does not come by feelings or by praying for emotional experiences. Again another stumbling block..

Finally, to get to the gist of my post, Shawn McRaney said on the show that he's asked for Scott Gordon from FAIR to come on the show, or any scholar or apologist. And even commented he would leave the building and give the whole one hour show to the scholar, apologist or even better a GA.

Would any of you please offer an answer as to why no one is showing up for this proposition of his?

If people are out there watching the show and not seeing two sides, just his side, shouldn't someone be the apologist, defender of your faith. People like me (kind of weak) need you. Yet all we hear are birds chirping. Seeing & hearing may be a nice addition to just reading the words.

Thank you sorry for the long post!

As far as I'm concerned, if your demands for quality argumentation are such that you find yourself persuaded by McRaney, of all people, then you should definitely join up with him and his group. I wouldn't wait another day if I were you.

[Solitario]

No one should show up on McCraney's show because it's *his* show. I loved the Mormon Stories interview -- it really helped me understand the man. He is not a theologian, he's not a scholar -- he is an entertainer with a message. Scott is a great guy and smart and knows his stuff, but he'd be like a regular candle next to a huge professional firework that goes 200 feet into the air. There's no way he could do any good in that forum.

It would have to be moderated and on at least neutral ground to make any sense at all. And even then, the viewer would need to appreciate scholarship as much as showmanship, to make it even. Not going to happen, IMO.

HiJolly

That one was the one of the most irritating Mormon Stories show to me.

John basically gave Shawn the whole platform to rant & dish out about Mormon shortcomings.

John should ask same type of Q's to Shawn. He never did.

[Tacenda]

As far as I'm concerned, if your demands for quality argumentation are such that you find yourself persuaded by McRaney, of all people, then you should definitely join up with him and his group. I wouldn't wait another day if I were you.

And lose everything? Because I would, lose everything. And I don't feel comfortable around the EV's yet. Only around my LDS bro's & sis. Is it because I'm use to them? I guess. Or is it that they, Ev's, don't have the "light" within them? I can't tell yet. Is this forum not a place for me? Maybe, you tell me. I'm just going where it's safe to get answers, sorry.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

And lose everything? Because I would, lose everything. And I don't feel comfortable around the EV's yet. Only around my LDS bro's & sis. Is it because I'm use to them? I guess. Or is it that they, Ev's, don't have the "light" within them? I can't tell yet. Is this forum not a place for me? Maybe, you tell me. I'm just going where it's safe to get answers, sorry.

Read my post#13 in answer to your OP. I am trying to help.

[Freedom]

I'm just going where it's safe to get answers, sorry.

You haven't provided a question that can be answered yet. As I asked earlier, what is it about these verses that concern you?

[Hamilton Porter]

Appearing on the Shawn McCraney show would do wonders to your CV.

[Buzzard]

And lose everything? Because I would, lose everything. And I don't feel comfortable around the EV's yet. Only around my LDS bro's & sis. Is it because I'm use to them? I guess. Or is it that they, Ev's, don't have the "light" within them? I can't tell yet. Is this forum not a place for me? Maybe, you tell me. I'm just going where it's safe to get answers, sorry.

Well, I wouldn't leave. Some of the posters here are a bit prickly, just like some people are a bit prickly. Frankly, I consider Shawn to be a buffoon based on the couple of times I have seen him, and I suspect William was just being sarcastic. The main reason you should stay is because Joseph Smith told the truth. He really did, and whatever side issues you may run into, at the risk of offending our EV friends, the bottom line is that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, and we have God's Priesthood authority, and they DON'T. All the posts and most of the threads on this and every other LDS oriented forum really do come down to those two simple facts. Of course, others disagree, but that's not my fault nor my problem.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Buzzard

[juliann]

Do you answer every telemarketer phone call and have an extended conversation because they demand it? Would you think it rational if McRaney called Senator Hatch and demanded he come and improve his ratings? This is just nonsense. Do you have any idea how many requests come in for this type thing? Scott and others have jobs and spend what free time they do have on other things. And there is ample information in those other things they do, it is irrational to say that it must come from one particular person on one particular day in one designated venue.

[Tacenda]

You haven't provided a question that can be answered yet. As I asked earlier, what is it about these verses that concern you?

Facts probably, that the BOM is true. Actual landmarks of the BOM lands perhaps. Where the wars were played out, bones of those that died.

The apologetics try and try to solve the mysteries in mormonism, but invariably it always ends up being left to the believer and his/her faith alone that is the only answer. As such is with the bible, so many don't believe the bible to be true, but atleast there are scrolls, landmarks and eyewitnesses in the bible.

You asked, what is it about these verses that concern you? It is that I have to ask myself, is my religion and faith in it, worth, losing my faith in Jesus alone? Because in some Christian faiths, they stress that it's faith alone in Jesus, not of works. Works comes after the faith alone theory.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Tacenda

[why me]

Because in some Christian faiths, they stress that it's faith alone in Jesus, not of works. Works comes after the faith alone theory.

It is a little nonsensical. I do not see any evidence that Paul was stressing faith without works. In fact, what drew the pagans to the christians were their works centered in love. And this is what Paul was stressing with his letters on chasity and obedience and love etc. And some members left the fold because they could not live up to a christian life of faith and works. The pagans offered something more easy. I don't see Paul saying: eat, drink, be merry, make love when and where you wish, but believe in Jesus and all will be well.