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

[Tacenda]

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.

http://www.bible.ca/mor-questions.htm

How many of these questions put forth by this website could be answered by FAIR or any of you on this board? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but need answers and my whole life depends on it. Facts, not feelings right now.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Tacenda

[selek1]

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.

This is a strawman.

We will never find a sign that says "Zarahemla- 5km" or a marker over a straw pallet that says, "Nephi slept here".

Those who do more than stick their toe in the water understand this limitation and why it exists.

The pantywaists cat-calling from the shore neither know nor care.

Yet when we do present evidence (NHM, chiasmas in the Book of Mormon and dozens of other things) , it is rationalized away, dismissed out of hand, or simply ignored.

There is a LOT of evidence out there which supports the Book of Mormon- but it is all useless to you if you cannot see past the end of your nose.

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.

This is a deeply silly mischaracterization.

Your characterization ignores (and misrepresents) at least five decades of research, exploration, and evidence in favor of bumber sticker sloganeering.

From a fan of McCraney's, this lack of depth should not surprise us.

Any reasoned conclusion- of any sort- is inherently subjective and inescapably dependent upon what evidence one chooses to accept and which one chooses to ignore.

We can show you evidence day and night, week-in and week-out.

But it will do you no good until you cast off the blinders of prejudice and preconception.

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.

None of which are complete, unedited, and whole. None of which prove the divinity of Jesus Christ.

The modern understanding of historical Christianity (and indeed of Biblical history) is a patch-work quilt of best-guesses, word-of-mouth folklore, and wild speculation.

To pretend otherwise is to delude oneself about the nature of history and scholarship.

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?

False dichotomy.

No where do the facts require a person to choose between the Church and Christ.

But then again, someone who understands the facts (instead of McCraney's mirage) would understand that.

[why me]

In terms of his church, it will be interesting if his church survives when he is gone. We can see what happened to the Crystal Cathedral when its charismatic founder became old and could not fine a replacement. The church went down very quickly.

And of course for the mobs who murdered Joseph Smith this is just what they hoped. The church would fall apart with Joseph Smith because they thought that the church was Joseph. However, the church was not Joseph. Brigham was chosen, finally polygamy could be practiced openly because the saints were moving westward away from the mobs until they reached the valley. And then, the church was free to worship freely. And it survived, stronger than ever.

And that says much. Wiould Mccraney's church survive without him?

[Tacenda]

delete

[ERayR]

Tacenda you keep covering the same ground over and over. You ask the question/ It gets answered you ignore or brush of the answers and ask the questions again. Rinse and repeat. It would be helpful if you would acknowledge and address the answers.

[TAO]

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.

Heya there! In any case, that is a good point; you kinda have to get into the doctrines, the doctrines are part of what makes being LDS worthwhile compared to all of the others.

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!!

You do need to be born again. But not born again Christian. Born again in the sense that you have the spirit with you, inside of you, to tell you what you are doing right and wrong, and also born again in the sense that you begin to keep the commandments of God. That is what born again means. It means to follow Christ in all you do.

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.

Well, that's a fine scripture. You DO need to give everything up that Christ asks you to. But, you have to realize, that may not be your religion. It may be instead, your habits, or attitudes, etc. For me, it was pride, and time... I had a hard time giving up those, but I did it. To give up things that the Lord asks us to is what we are meant to do, and we will be blessed for it.

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.

That scripture does not mean don't trust your feelings. It means trust your preachers, be it the prophet, your bishop, or even the Holy Spirit itself, which also ministers unto you to guide you through life. To trust your feelings from the Holy Ghost is to hear the word of God directed straight to you. It's very useful and important.

Let me tell you, also, that ultimately, the foundation of all religion, regardless of what anybody bases their logic on, is based on feelings. For example, why do we trust the Bible so? Or why do we trust our prophets? How do we know what is right? How do we know what contains true precepts. We know because of our feelings - nothing more, nothing less.

Similarly, when you ask the Spirit for an answer, he will answer through your feelings. That is the way you learn spiritual truth; through your feelings. We all do it, regardless if we base ourselves on the Bible, the words of a prophet, or just the Holy Spirit itself. You have to trust your feeling for these things, and that's okay, because the Holy Spirit is your gift from God to allow you to be able to do so.

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.

Okay. Well, I suppose he can try. I don't know however, if it would be a good idea. One of the things you learn as an apologist is to 'believe the unbelievable'. There are things that regular people simply wouldn't believe but are true (because there's really really good evidence for it). Considering that apologetic work consists of a lot of this, I'm not sure it would be productive to have an apologist on the show. Normal everyday people aren't going to have evidence to the research that proves that those concepts are true, regardless of pre-existing belief.

Some good examples: Judaism in ancient times being polytheistic, The translation process which Joseph Smith used not requiring the plates to be looked at, Horses possibly not coming to the Americas via Columbus, Many different groups of people traveling to America before Columbus (not just the Vikings), etc.

Ultimately, we struggle because these are not commonly known truths. People will be resistant to our suggesting them, and when we cite the research, that's just going to get them more confused. It will be easier to convince other scholars of this over the mainstream population.

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

Again, I'm not quite sure the people there are ready for a full apologetic answer. A different type of answer, perhaps. But oftentimes, I find people have problems with physically related things, and not scriptures, which you can usually show an alternative interpretation that doesn't conflict.

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.

Read stuff here. That is the best bet, I think. Occasionally you will come across stuff that you find interesting. And keep asking questions of the forum; you'll get answers, probably =).

Thank you sorry for the long post!

No prob! The best of luck to you!

-TAO

[Buzzard]

Tacenda, it might be useful to go back and review the journey of the poster formerly known as reelmormon. He finally came to the realization that we need a balance of facts and faith. We don't need to find a sign saying "Zarahemla, this way-->" to know the the BOM is true. And frankly once we realize the BOM is what JS said it was, everything else becomes a side issue.

[Tacenda]

Tacenda you keep covering the same ground over and over. You ask the question/ It gets answered you ignore or brush of the answers and ask the questions again. Rinse and repeat. It would be helpful if you would acknowledge and address the answers.

I haven't got any answers yet. Or am I up in the night? The reason I'm going around in circles is because I haven't received the answers. Show me where I have. Below I posted this. See what you think. I'm not anti, not at all, maybe a little dense sometimes.

http://www.bible.ca/mor-questions.htm

How many of these questions put forth by this website could be answered by FAIR or any of you on this board? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but need answers and my whole life depends on it. Facts, not feelings right now.

[selek1]

How many of these questions put forth by this website could be answered by FAIR or any of you on this board? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but need answers and my whole life depends on it. Facts, not feelings right now.

Wow.

Your "whole life" and testimony are riding on how people you don't know answer a series of "gotcha" questions from a polemical website designed to spread falsehood and misinformation.

Such intellectual rigor!

Such clarity of thought!

Such moral courage and fortitude!

I may weep....

Just to humor you (and to show that it can be done):

Why did the angel take Nephi Plates back to heaven?

Because they had served their purpose. They are safeguarded until they are needed again.

Do they not belong with man?

Apparently not, since they are not here. More specifically, what purpose would they serve here that the Book of Mormon does not?

Would not their existence prove once for all that Mormonism is truth?

Given the uproar and the furor over the Anthon transcript, no- they would not. Critics will continue to rationalize and theorize no matter how much evidence is provided.

God allowed the Jews to carry the 10 commandments for several centuries in their original physical form, written by the finger of God Himself!

Assertion not in evidence. The only "evidence" to this allegation comes in word-of-mouth folklore passed down by interested (and invested) parties. There is no objective, independent evidence to support this assertion.

"Will you, as a Mormon, please read the Bible cover to cover and ask God to reveal to you that it contains all of God's message to man and that parts are not lost or altered and that the Book of Mormon is false?"

False dichotomy and a priori reasoning. The Bible itself does not claim to contain "all of God's message to man". Further, it is a matter of scientific fact that the extant Biblical texts have been compiled from incomplete, fragmentary, and often contradictory accounts.

Worse, the Bible itself references extant prophesies and texts not included in modern copies.

Finally, I have read the Bible cover-to-cover, and the Book of Mormon. I have asked of God.

And none of the evidence: the testimony of the Spirit, the harmonization of the Gospel texts, and the extant archaeological evidence indicate that the Book of Mormon is false.

Edited July 5, 2012 by selek1

[why me]

http://www.bible.ca/mor-questions.htm

How many of these questions put forth by this website could be answered by FAIR or any of you on this board? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but need answers and my whole life depends on it. Facts, not feelings right now.

First question:

Why did the angel take Nephi Plates back to heaven? Do they not belong with man? Would not their existence prove once for all that Mormonism is truth? God allowed the Jews to carry the 10 commandments for several centuries in their original physical form, written by the finger of God Himself!

If we had the plates, we would not need faith. God's existence would be proven. We do not have the original ten commandments. If we did, we would not need faith either. What happened to the original ten commandments that mose's took down from the mountain?

[wenglund]

Facts probably, that the BOM is true.

That would contravene, to some extent, the reason we came to earth and the purpose of the gospel--i.e. growth in faith. See: 2 Cor. 5 (particularly verse 7)

As indicated previously, the only appropriate ways for you to determine if the Book of Mormon is of God, is to ask him (Moroni 10) and to put the precepts of the book to the test by living them (Alma 32).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 5, 2012 by wenglund

[why me]

Second question from the link:

"Will you, as a Mormon, please read the Bible cover to cover and ask God to reveal to you that it contains all of God's message to man and that parts are not lost or altered and that the Book of Mormon is false?

The mormons are encouraged to read the bible from cover all the time. In fact, they study the new testament and the old testament in sunday school. The book of mormon compliments the bible and testifies that Jesus is the christ. Isn't it wonderful that mormons have a second witness to strengthen their faith in Jesus?

[Tacenda]

Tacenda, it might be useful to go back and review the journey of the poster formerly known as reelmormon. He finally came to the realization that we need a balance of facts and faith. We don't need to find a sign saying "Zarahemla, this way-->" to know the the BOM is true. And frankly once we realize the BOM is what JS said it was, everything else becomes a side issue.

I tried to find reelmormon when I went to "Members" but couldn't see his name.

[Darren10]

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

Don't know. Is his show boring?

[why me]

Third question from the link:

If the original 1830 Book of Mormon was inspired than why were there so many errors and changes and additions and deletions, when compared to current editions?

The book of mormon was dictated to a scribe. The changes are not that major.

FAIR has written much about it. You can read the answers here:

http://www.google.com/cse?siteurl=www.fairlds.org%2F&ref=www.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dfairlds.org%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CFIQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.fairlds.org%252F%26ei%3DEeX1T_OKFuT24QTf39DcBg%26usg%3DAFQjCNEhgqAEvW3F8Big8yIownuVZY_Ytw&ss=3299j483611j29&cx=006480910542272568972%3Adjiv3kx8zqo&ie=UTF-8&q=changes+to+the+book+of+mormon&sa.x=8&sa.y=14#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=changes%20to%20the%20book%20of%20mormon&gsc.page=1

[why me]

I tried to find reelmormon when I went to "Members" but couldn't see his name.

He is now DBmormon.

[TAO]

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.

Why do you need facts, or evidence, let me ask?

You have to have faith that God exists; how is this any different?

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.

Because all of life comes down to faith, eventually, when you trace it down the line. Even an atheist has to have a little bit of it, to live in reality. The only person who doesn't have faith is the philosophical skeptic, who believes everything is unknowable (except that you exist, though in what form, they say that's unknowable too).

Just as you can't prove (or even provide strong evidence for) God's existence beyond what the Holy Spirit tells you, you will have to do the same thing to trust the Book of Mormon. You have to have faith to believe in him, and you will have to have faith to trust the Book of Mormon (and the Bible too).

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.

In my small opinion, there is no such thing as faith alone. As James points out, "faith, without works, is dead." You need faith, and faith will automatically generate works if it is true and real faith. They come together, as a package.

And as much as they are telling you not to trust your faith more than you trust Jesus (which I agree with), I would also warn you this: Don't trust the Bible more than you trust Jesus. The Bible is just a book, with commandments of God in it. However, Christ, is far more than that. The Bible can have errors in it, but Christ never will. Follow his straight and narrow path back home, that is the best bet.

Edited July 5, 2012 by TAO

[why me]

Fourth question from the link:

How can we be assured that the translation of the B of M into French or any other language is correct? Only the English translation is claimed to be inspired!

The translation is gone over with a fine tooth comb. But here is a fact: the bible has been translated over and over again with different versions. Which one is true and does Mccraney's organization have the best translation of the bible?

Edited July 5, 2012 by why me

[why me]

Fifth question:

How do you account for the stunning parallels in both content and order between the B of M and the View of the Hebrews, by Ethan Smith? Published in 1823 (7 years before the B of M) less than 100 miles from the Joseph Smith's parents home.

From FAIR:

http://www.google.co... of the hebrews

Many things have been written about it. Also, Joseph mentioned View of the Hebrews to the early mormons. Nothing was hidden. Here is a bigger question: I know of no early member who left the church because of View of the Hebrews even though many had heard of it. Why?

Here is Joseph's reference to it:

There was, however, a reference to View of the Hebrews within Joseph Smith's lifetime, but it came from the prophet himself. In an article published in the Times and Seasons on June 1, 1842, Joseph quoted View of the Hebrews in support of the Book of Mormon:

If such may have been the fact, that a part of the Ten Tribes came over to America, in the way we have supposed, leaving the cold regions of Assareth behind them in quest of a milder climate, it would be natural to look for tokens of the presence of Jews of some sort, along countries adjacent to the Atlantic. In order to this, we shall here make an extract from an able work: written exclusively on the subject of the Ten Tribes having come from Asia by the way of Bherings Strait, by the Rev. Ethan Smith, Pultney, Vt., who relates as follows: "Joseph Merrick, Esq., a highly respectable character in the church at Pittsfield, gave the following account: That in 1815, he was leveling some ground under and near an old wood shed, standing on a place of his, situated on (Indian Hill)... [Joseph then discusses the supposed phylacteries found among Amerindians, citing View of the Hebrews p. 220, 223.]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Authorship_theories/View_of_the_Hebrews

The entire link deserves a good read.

Edited July 5, 2012 by why me

[ERayR]

I haven't got any answers yet. Or am I up in the night? The reason I'm going around in circles is because I haven't received the answers. Show me where I have. Below I posted this. See what you think. I'm not anti, not at all, maybe a little dense sometimes.

http://www.bible.ca/mor-questions.htm

How many of these questions put forth by this website could be answered by FAIR or any of you on this board? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but need answers and my whole life depends on it. Facts, not feelings right now.

A critic or anti-Mormon website designed to make you question your faith. As for answering those questions, well I would say that all of them can and have been answered. The question is are you willing to expend the effort to go out and read the answers and then choose to accept those answers? Actually almost all those questions are based upon straw men premises and once analyzed are inane. Example: #11 - When Christ died, did darkness cover the land for three days or for three hours? (Luke 23:44 and 3 Nephi 8:19, 23). This quest sets up the presumption/assumption that both verses are talking about the same land. This is ridiculous on its surface as the Bible is a record from Jerusalem in the near middle east and the Book of Mormon is from somewhere in the western hemisphere.

There now I have you started go look at them again. I am sure you can find the fallacies in each one. I looked through the first section and didn't find a one that wasn't based on a false premise.

[why me]

I have been providing answers by answering the questions from the link. How am I doing?

[Bob Crockett]

Fifth question:

How do you account for the stunning parallels in both content and order between the B of M and the View of the Hebrews, by Ethan Smith? Published in 1823 (7 years before the B of M) less than 100 miles from the Joseph Smith's parents home.

From FAIR:

http://www.google.co... of the hebrews

Many things have been written about it. Also, Joseph mentioned View of the Hebrews to the early mormons. Nothing was hidden. Here is a bigger question: I know of no early member who left the church because of View of the Hebrews even though many had heard of it. Why?

The one thing, to which I take great exception, is the following FAIR statement (John Welch uses the same argument): "There are a significant number of differences between the two books, which are easily discovered upon reading Ethan Smith's work."

When it comes to showing that one work was used to create another, "differences" are completely irrelevant and a confusing red herring.

Let me give a personal example. I one wrote a lengthy article arguing that software should be treated as tangible personal property. It was rather groundbreaking, I might modestly state, at least at the time. Two years later, an obscure law journal published a piece three times the length of mine, reaching the opposite conclusion. But, it quoted word for word several paragraphs of my paper, including my particular odd turns of phrases. No attribution.

When I confronted the author over this affront in a telephone call, he admitted that he had had my paper but said that he had never used it. When I confronted the obscure law school over this outrage, they responded by saying that it was not used because their paper came to a different conclusion. However, the law does not so provide, and instead you look to plagiarisms, and not differences.

So I've been rather appalled by this argument used by apologists; some other argument needs to be made.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[ERayR]

Ultimately you are going to have to choose. All choices are made on incomplete evidence. You must make the best choice possible given the evidence you have. So ultimately you are going to make your choice on what evidence you choose to believe. I hope you don't choose to accept the inane juvenile hogwash like that website you posted. I am sure if you had taken the time to analyze it for just a few minutes you could have seen it was faulty.

[selek1]

If the original 1830 Book of Mormon was inspired than why were there so many errors and changes and additions and deletions, when compared to current editions?

The original manuscript was transcribed orally and on-the-fly under conditions that would be considered "primitive" at best.

That manuscript was then passed on to the printers who made a number of subtle alterations.

That having been said, the overwhelming majority of "corrections" are directly attributable to punctuation, spelling, and scribal error.

How can we be assured that the translation of the B of M into French or any other language is correct? Only the English translation is claimed to be inspired!

Blatant double standard. There is no guarantee that any of the hundreds (thousands?) of separate translations, editions, revisions, and compilations of the Bible are correct.

How do you account for the stunning parallels in both content and order between the B of M and the View of the Hebrews, by Ethan Smith? Published in 1823 (7 years before the B of M) less than 100 miles from the Joseph Smith's parents home.

The "stunning parallels" are shallow, superficial, and wildly exaggerated. This particular meme makes for a dandy sound bite, but does not stand up to scholarly analysis.

Mormon Article of Faith #8: "We Believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." Why do you only add the phrase, "as far as it is translated correctly" to describe the Bible and not after the book of Mormon when in fact there are far more translating errors in the Book of Mormon than the Bible?

This is a step forward from Question #1 (in that you are finally admitting that there are errors in the Bible).

That having been said, however, you are still begging the question. The vast majority of errors in the Book of Mormon were matters of spelling or punctuation.

"Errors" in the Bible consist of redactions, omissions, direct contradictions, flawed geneologies, and contradictory eye-witnesses.

We can closely follow the translation pedigree of the Book of Mormon, yet still acknowledge the possibility of error.

We have no such provenance or close control for the Bible.

If the Book of Mormon is true, then why has the Mormon church changed it? Examples are: 1 Nephi 11:21; 19:20; 20:1 and Alma 29:4. Compare these with the original Book of Mormon. (Gerald and Sandra Tanner have counted 3913 changes in the book of Mormon, excluding punctuation changes.)

The Tanners have a vested emotional and financial investment in justifying their apostacy and hostillity. Neither are scholars, and neither is a credible witness.

How did Joseph Smith carry home the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, and how did the witnesses lift them so easily? (They weighed about 230 lbs. Gold, with a density of 19.3 weighs 1204.7 lbs. per cubic foot. The plates were 7" x 8" by about 6". See Articles of Faith, by Talmage, page 262, 34^th ed.)

These numbers are, in fact, highly speculative. There is no evidence that the plates were pure gold. Depending upon their composition, they could have weighed far less.

If Moroni devoutly practiced the Mormon Gospel, why is he an angel now rather than a God? (Doc. & Cov. 132:17,37)

It is generally understood that exaltation will come after the Resurrection, Millenium, and Final Judgement- not before. Edited July 5, 2012 by selek1

[KevinG]

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.

I blame the parents.