by Fred W. Anson
Introduction
Anyone who has investigated Mormonism knows how intensively Latter-day Saints will press them to read the Book of Mormon. And no doubt, you’ll be told that the Book of Mormon contains the “fulness of the gospel” and that it’s the “keystone of our religion”. You might even be told that Joseph Smith himself said, “Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations, and where is our religion? We have none.”

However, they also fail to tell you that very little Mormon doctrine can actually be found in the Book of Mormon – the vast majority is found elsewhere. For example, look at the three common claims that were made in the first paragraph above (the ones in quotes). The first is from another book of LdS Scripture known as “Doctrine & Covenants” (D&C 20:9 and D&C 27:5) and the third is from Joseph Smith’s “History of the Church” (Volume 2, Page 52). Only the second quote is actually from the Book of Mormon – and it’s from the introduction not the central narrative.[1]

But that’s just the tip of the iceberg, as one Mormon convert noted a couple of years after being baptized into the LdS Church (and while she was on her way back out of the Mormon Church), “They give you the normal stuff to get you in and then once there’s no turning back they teach you the really weird stuff!” Perhaps that’s why in the LdS Church Handbook of Instructions (the manual of standard operating procedures that Mormon clergy are supposed to follow) one must be a member for at least a year before you’ll even be granted a temple recommend Interview so you can be deemed worthy to enter an LdS Temple and go through the endowment ceremony[2] – and I’ve got to tell you that the LdS Temple endowment ceremony certainly is “really weird stuff!”[3]

But that said, one needn’t wait: Not only will this article tell you some of the “weird stuff” that’s not in the Book of Mormon, but it will also show you where to find it for yourself. 

THE CHURCH
- Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ physically appeared to Joseph Smith (aka “The First Vision”).

Stained glass depiction of the first vision of Joseph Smith, Jr., completed in 1913 by an unknown artist (Museum of Church History and Art).

Stained glass depiction of the first vision of Joseph Smith, Jr., completed in 1913 by an unknown artist (Museum of Church History and Art).

Where you’ll find it:
The Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith – History 1:16&17
16 But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction – not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being – just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me.

17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other – This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
– Joseph Smith

- All other churches and their leaders are in a state of corrupt apostasy (aka “The First Vision”).

Where you’ll find it:
The Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith – History 1:18-20
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong) – and which I should join.

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time.
– Joseph Smith

- The Priesthood is necessary in order for men to receive authority to act in the name of God and perform the various duties necessary to carry out the ordinances of the gospel.

Where you’ll find it:
“Priesthood Principles, Handbook 2: Administering the Church”, Chapter 2: Priesthood Principles
“Priesthood keys are the authority God has given to priesthood leaders to direct, control, and govern the use of His priesthood on earth. The exercise of priesthood authority is governed by those who hold its keys (see D&C 65:2; 81:2; 124:123). Those who hold priesthood keys have the right to preside over and direct the Church within a jurisdiction.”
– Official LdS Church Manual

Image from the LdS Church Educational System Institute Manual "Gospel Doctrines" with this caption, "Righteousness is the key to priesthood power and eternal life."

Image from the LdS Church Educational System Institute Manual “Gospel Doctrines” with this caption, “Righteousness is the key to priesthood power and eternal life.”

A. Theodore Tuttle (President of the First Council of the Seventy), “Priesthood Its Power and Vitality”, Ensign, July 1972, p.119
“In order to gain exaltation a man must obtain, then magnify, the holy priesthood.

For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.

‘They become the elect of God.

‘And therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.

‘And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood. (D&C 84:33 34, 38 39.)”

THE NATURE OF GOD
- God the Father was once a man, on another world (Kolob), and progressed to godhood by following perfectly the commands and precepts of his Father God.

Where you’ll find it:
“The King Follett Sermon”; Ensign, May 1971, p.13;
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible – I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form – like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man.”
– Joseph Smith

The Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham 3:2-3
And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;

And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

Facsimile No. 2 from the Book of Abraham, which Smith said discusses Kolob. The part Smith said refers to Kolob is numbered by a "1" in the center.

Facsimile No. 2 from the Book of Abraham, which Smith said discusses Kolob. The part Smith said refers to Kolob is numbered by a “1″ in the center. (click to enlarge)

LdS Church Hymnal, Hymn #284, “If You Could Hie to Kolob”, verses 1-2
If you could hie to Kolob
In the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward
With that same speed to fly,
Do you think that you could ever,
Through all eternity,
Find out the generation
Where Gods began to be?

Or see the grand beginning,
Where space did not extend?
Or view the last creation,
Where Gods and matter end?
Methinks the Spirit whispers,
“No man has found ‘pure space,’
Nor seen the outside curtains,
Where nothing has a place.”

B. H. Roberts (Mormon Seventy and LDS church historian), New Witness for God 1:476
“But if God the Father was not always God, but came to his present exalted position by degrees of progress as indicated in the teachings of the prophet, how has there been a God from all eternity? The answer is that there has been and there now exists an endless line of Gods, stretching back into the eternities.”

Milton R. Hunter (Mormon Seventy), “The Gospel Throughout The Ages”, p.104, 114-15
“Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that through which we are now passing. He became God-an exalted being.” (p.104)

“Yet, if we accept the great law of eternal progression, we must accept the fact that there was a time when Deity was much less powerful than He is today.” (p.114)

“Thus He grew in experience and continued to grow until He attained the status of Godhood.” (p.115)

- God the Father is a person with a body of flesh and bones.

Where you’ll find it:
Doctrine & Covenants 130:22
The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

- The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are separate gods, “one in purpose” only but not one in being.

Where you’ll find it:
True to the Faith (2004), 73-74
“From the Prophet’s account of the First Vision and from his other teachings, we know that the members of the Godhead are three separate beings. The Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bones, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (see D&C 130:22).

Although the members of the Godhead are distinct beings with distinct roles, they are one in purpose and doctrine.”

- There are a plurality of gods but we only worship the God of this world, God the Father (aka “Heavenly Father”)

Where you’ll find it:
The Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham Chapter 4
Here’s an excerpt:

1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

A Mormon "Quad" (all four books of LdS scripture in one bound volume) open to the Pearl of Great Price.

A Mormon “Quad” (all four books of LdS scripture in one bound volume) open to the Pearl of Great Price.

2 And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the earth; and darkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters.

3 And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.

4 And they (the Gods) comprehended the light, for it was bright; and they divided the light, or caused it to be divided, from the darkness.

“The King Follett Sermon”; Ensign, May 1971, p.13
“A Council of the Gods. In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.”
– Joseph Smith

History of the Church 6:474;
“I will preach on the plurality of Gods… I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.”
– Joseph Smith

History of the Church 6:476
“The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us…”
– Joseph Smith

- God is married and has at least one wife in heaven.

Where you’ll find it:
“Primary 2: Choose the Right”, Lesson 3, “I Am a Child of God”
“we all lived in heaven with Heavenly Father before we came to this earth. We are his children. That is why we call him Heavenly Father. We also lived with our heavenly mother and all the rest of Heavenly Father’s children. Everyone who has been born on the earth is a child of Heavenly Father.”
– Official LdS Church Manual

The LdS Church Hymnal

The LdS Church Hymnal

LdS Church Hymnal, Hymn #292, “O My Father” verse 3
I had learned to call thee Father,
Thru thy Spirit from on high,
But, until the key of knowledge
Was restored, I knew not why.
In the heav’ns are parents single?
No, the thought makes reason stare!
Truth is reason; truth eternal
Tells me I’ve a mother there.

Milton R. Hunter (Mormon Seventy), “The Gospel Throughout The Ages”, p.99
“The stupendous truth of the existence of a Heavenly Mother, as well as a Heavenly Father, became established facts in Mormon theology.”

THE CREATION
- God the Father, Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith and other sons of the Father did not create the universe and earth out of nothing, but “organized” them from eternally existing matter that pre-existed God the Father.

Where you’ll find it:
“The King Follett Sermon”; Ensign, May 1971, p.13
“You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing, and they will answer, “Doesn’t the Bible say he created the world?” And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos – chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end.”
– Joseph Smith

“History of the Church” 6:473-479
“The head God organized the heavens and the earth. I defy all the world to refute me. In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth.”
- Joseph Smith, “Sermon On Plurality of Gods,” June 16, 1844

MEN CAN BECOME GODS (aka “Exaltation”)
- The Most faithful and worthy Mormons can progress to godhood in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, where they can obtain their own world and with their wife (or wives) procreate spirit children for eternity.

Where you’ll find it:

“The King Follett Sermon”; Ensign, May 1971, p.13
“Here, then, is eternal life to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.”
– Joseph Smith

The official LdS Church manual, "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow", his famous couplet can be found on page 83.

The official LdS Church manual, “Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow”, his famous couplet can be found on page 83.

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow, 2011, p.83
“As man now is, God once was:
“As God now is, man may be.”
– The “Lorenzo Snow Couplet” as quoted in an official LdS Church Manual

LdS Church Hymnal, Hymn #284, “If You Could Hie to Kolob”, verse 3
The works of God continue,
And worlds and lives abound;
Improvement and progression
Have one eternal round.
There is no end to matter;
There is no end to space;
There is no end to spirit;
There is no end to race.

- The “new and everlasting covenant” of polygamy is necessary for exaltation to godhood.

Where you’ll find it:
Doctrine & Covenants 132:4
“For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant [polygamy]; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.”

- Mormons who are unmarried in this life and do not marry in the next life, cannot be exalted, but will become servant ministering angels to exalted Mormons in the next life.

Where you’ll find it:
Doctrine & Covenants 132:17
“For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.”

HEAVEN AND HELL
- There are three degrees (or “levels” in plain English) in heaven consisting of:
1. Telestial Kingdom- lowest degree
2. Terrestrial Kingdom – middle degree
3. Celestial Kingdom – highest degree, of which there are also three degrees

Where you’ll find it:
Doctrine & Covenants 76:70-92
70 These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.

71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of theterrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of the moon differs from the sun in the firmament.

72 Behold, these are they who died without law;

73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;

The Mormon Plan of Salvation showing the Three Degrees of Glory

The Mormon Plan of Salvation showing the Three Degrees of Glory. (click to enlarge)

74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.

75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.

76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.

77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.

78 Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun.

79 These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God.

80 And now this is the end of the vision which we saw of the terrestrial, that the Lord commanded us to write while we were yet in the Spirit.

81 And again, we saw the glory of the telestial, which glory is that of the lesser, even as the glory of the stars differs from that of the glory of the moon in the firmament.

82 These are they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus.

Title page from an open 1835 edition of Doctrine And Covenants

Title page from an open 1835 edition of Doctrine And Covenants

83 These are they who deny not the Holy Spirit.

84 These are they who are thrust down to hell.

85 These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have finished his work.

86 These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial;

87 And the terrestrial through the ministration of the celestial.

88 And also the telestial receive it of the ministering of angels who are appointed to minister for them, or who are appointed to be ministering spirits for them; for they shall be heirs of salvation.

89 And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding;

90 And no man knows it except him to whom God has revealed it.

91 And thus we saw the glory of the terrestrial which excels in all things the glory of the telestial, even in glory, and in power, and in might, and in dominion.

92 And thus we saw the glory of the celestial, which excels in all things where God, even the Father, reigns upon his throne forever and ever . . .”
- – Joseph Smith, A vision given to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Sidney Rigdon, at Hiram, Ohio, February 16, 1832; also see “History of the Church” 1:245-252

- Every human being will find a place in one of the three degrees of glory (or “heaven” in plain English). 

Where you’ll find it:
Joseph Smith, “History of the Church” 1:283
“A man may be saved, after the judgment, in the terrestrial kingdom, or in the telestial kingdom, but he can never see the celestial kingdom of God, without being born of water and the Spirit.”
– Joseph Smith

- The only people not in one of the three degrees of glory will be the Devil and his angels as well as those Mormons who have held the priesthood and become apostate. The latter are referred to as “the sons of perdition” in Mormon doctrine. 

Where you’ll find it: 
Gospel Topics: Hell
“Latter-day revelations speak of hell in at least two ways. First, it is another name for spirit prison, a temporary place in the postmortal world for those who died without a knowledge of the truth or those who were disobedient in mortality. Second, it is the permanent location of Satan and his followers and the sons of perdition, who are not redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

"Spooky  Mormon Hell Dream" from "The Book of Mormon The Musical"

“Spooky Mormon Hell Dream” from “The Book of Mormon The Musical”

Spirit prison is a temporary state in which spirits will be taught the gospel and have the opportunity to repent and accept ordinances of salvation that are performed for them in temples (see D&C 138:30-35). Those who accept the gospel may dwell in paradise until the Resurrection. After they are resurrected and judged, they will receive the degree of glory of which they are worthy. Those who choose not to repent but who are not sons of perdition will remain in spirit prison until the end of the Millennium, when they will be freed from hell and punishment and be resurrected to a telestial glory (see D&C 76:81-85).

Those who are not redeemed by the Atonement are in outer darkness, which is the dwelling place of the devil, his angels, and the sons of perdition (see D&C 29:36-38; 76:28-33). Sons of perdition are those who receive “no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame” (D&C 76:34-35; see also D&C 76:31-33, 36-37). Such individuals will not inherit a place in any kingdom of glory; for them the conditions of hell remain (see D&C 76:38; 88:24, 32).”
– Official LdS Church website

Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, (2000), pp.90–93
“The scriptures explain who the sons of perdition are and what their fate will be.
1. Satan and the one-third of the hosts of heaven who followed him became sons of perdition (see D&C 76:25-3029:36–38Revelation 12:7–92 Peter 2:4Jude 1:6).
2. Those who in mortality have known the power of God, been made partakers of it, and then later denied the truth and defied God’s power will also be sons of perdition (see D&C 76:31–32).
3. Those who deny the Holy Ghost after having received it and crucify the Savior unto themselves will have no forgiveness and will be sons of perdition (see D&C 76:34–36Matthew 12:31–32).
4. Sons of perdition will suffer the wrath of God and partake of the second death (see D&C 76:33, 37–38).
Those who become sons of perdition in mortality will be resurrected but will not be redeemed in a kingdom of glory (see D&C 76:38–39, 43–4488:24, 32).
5. Only those who become sons of perdition will be able to comprehend the magnitude of the misery of those who inherit such a state (see D&C 76:44–48).”
– Official LdS Church website

- Temples and temple ordinances pertaining to endowments are necessary in order to pass through the veil and enter the presence of God the Father, and consist of temple marriage, new names, secret key words and handshakes that will be used as an identification of the person in the next life.

Where you’ll find it:
Doctrine & Covenants 124:37-48
37 And again, verily I say unto you, how shall your washings be acceptable unto me, except ye perform them in a house which you have built to my name?

38 For, for this cause I commanded Moses that he should build a tabernacle, that they should bear it with them in the wilderness, and to build a house in the land of promise, that those ordinances might be revealed which had been hid from before the world was.

LdS Temple Sealing Room, Dallas, Texas

LdS Temple Sealing Room, Dallas, Texas

39 Therefore, verily I say unto you, that your anointings, and your washings, and your baptisms for the dead, and your solemn assemblies, and your memorials for your sacrifices by the sons of Levi, and for your oracles in your most holy places wherein you receive conversations, and your statutes and judgments, for the beginning of the revelations and foundation of Zion, and for the glory, honor, and endowment of all her municipals, are ordained by the ordinance of my holy house, which my people are always commanded to build unto my holy name.

40 And verily I say unto you, let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein unto my people;

41 For I deign to reveal unto my church things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fulness of times.

42 And I will show unto my servant Joseph all things pertaining to this house, and the priesthood thereof, and the place whereon it shall be built.

43 And ye shall build it on the place where you have contemplated building it, for that is the spot which I have chosen for you to build it.

44 If ye labor with all your might, I will consecrate that spot that it shall be made holy.

45 And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they shall not be moved out of their place.

46 But if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest, because they pollute mine holy grounds, and mine holy ordinances, and charters, and my holy words which I give unto them.

47 And it shall come to pass that if you build a house unto my name, and do not do the things that I say, I will not perform the oath which I make unto you, neither fulfil the promises which ye expect at my hands, saith the Lord.

48 For instead of blessings, ye, by your own works, bring cursings, wrath, indignation, and judgments upon your own heads, by your follies, and by all your abominations, which you practise before me, saith the Lord.”
– Joseph Smith

LdS Temple Endowment Ceremony: Initiatory Rite
“With this garment, I give you a new name, which you should always remember and which you must keep sacred and never reveal, except at a certain place that will be shown you hereafter.

The name is _________.”
(NOTE: Everyone goes through the temple that day is given the same name such as “Adam”, “Noah”, “Sarah”, “Naomi”, etc.  A database of these names can be found here)

Simulated LdS Temple scene with examples of full LdS Temple Garments attire from the "Big Love" television show

Simulated LdS Temple scene with examples of full LdS temple garments attire from the “Big Love” television show

LdS Temple Endowment Ceremony: The Terrestrial World
“THE FIRST TOKEN OF THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD

PETER: We will now give unto you the first token of the Melchizedek priesthood, or Sign of the Nail, with its accompanying name, sign, and penalty.

[Peter demonstrates the token.]

We desire all to receive it. All arise.

[All initiates receive the token. Peter then reveals the name, sign, and penalty for this token.]

I will now explain the covenant and obligation of secrecy which are associated with this token, its name, sign, and penalty, which you will be required to take upon yourselves.

If I were receiving the endowment today, either for myself or for the dead, I would repeat in my mind these words, after making the sign, at the same time representing the execution of the penalty:

‘I covenant in the name _________ that I will never reveal the first token of the Melchizedek priesthood, or Sign of the Nail, with its accompanying name, sign, and penalty.’

[Peter leads the initiates in repeating this oath.]

That will do.”

LdS Temple Endowment Ceremony: The Veil
“First Token of the Melchizedek Priesthood

The first token of the Melchizedek priesthood, or Sign of the Nail.

The first token of the Melchizedek priesthood, or Sign of the Nail.

PETER: The Lord then gives the first token of the Melchizedek priesthood, or Sign of the Nail, and asks:

LORD: What is that?

PETER: The first token of the Melchizedek priesthood, or Sign of the Nail.

LORD: Has it a name?

PETER: It has.

LORD: Will you give it to me?

PETER: I will, through the veil.

The person then gives the name of this token, which is _________.”

- Baptisms for the dead must be performed by proxy in this life for those who did not accept the gospel in this life, so that their sins can be forgiven and they can enter the Celestial Kingdom after they accept the Mormon gospel message in the next life.

An LdS Temple baptismal Font.

An LdS Temple baptismal Font.

Where you’ll find it:
Doctrine & Covenants 128:15-16
15 And now, my dearly beloved brethren and sisters, let me assure you that these are principles in relation to the dead and the living that cannot be lightly passed over, as pertaining to our salvation. For their salvation is necessary and essential to our salvation, as Paul says concerning the fathers – that they without us cannot be made perfect – neither can we without our dead be made perfect.

16 And now, in relation to the baptism for the dead, I will give you another quotation of Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:29: Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?

Mormon.org Frequently Asked Questions: Why do Mormons perform baptisms for the dead?
“The Prophet Joseph Smith first taught about the ordinance of baptism for the dead during a funeral sermon in August 1840. He read much of 1 Corinthians 15, including verse 29, and announced that the Lord would permit Church members to be baptized in behalf of their friends and relatives who had departed this life. He told them “the plan of salvation was calculated to save all who were willing to obey the requirements of the law of God” (Journal History of the Church, 15 Aug. 1840).”

THE NATURE OF MAN
- Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother procreated the spirits of every human being that has lived, is now living or will ever live on this earth.

Where you’ll find it:
Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, (2000), pp.13–15
“We lived as spirit children of God in a premortal existence.

1. God is the father of the spirits of all mankind (see Hebrews 12:9; D&C 76:24; Acts 17:29; Romans 8:16).
2. Our spirit bodies are in the form of God’s physical body (see D&C 77:2; Ether 3:6–16).
3. Our instruction and preparation for earth life began in the world of spirits (see D&C 138:56).
4. God gave us agency in the premortal life (see Moses 4:3; D&C 29:36).
5. Many became noble and great in the premortal world (see Abraham 3:22–25; Jeremiah 1:4–6; Alma 13:3–5).”
– Official LdS Church Manual

Achieving a Celestial Marriage Manual

“Achieving a Celestial Marriage” official LdS Church manual

“Achieving a Celestial Marriage”, p.129
“By definition exaltation includes the ability to procreate the family unit throughout eternity. This our Father in heaven has power to do. His marriage partner is our mother in heaven. We are their spirit children, born to them in the bonds of celestial marriage.”
– Official LdS Church Manual

- The spirits procreated by Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother lived with their father on his world as angels in the “pre-existence” before being sent to earth to inhabit human bodies.

Where you’ll find it:
Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, (2000), pp.13–15
“These spirit beings, the offspring of exalted parents, were men and women, appearing in all respects as mortal persons do, excepting only that their spirit bodies were made of a more pure and refined substance than the elements from which mortal bodies are made. (Ether 3:16; D. & C. 131:7–8.)” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 589)

“In the pre-existence we dwelt in the presence of God our Father. When the time arrived for us to be advanced in the scale of our existence and pass through this mundane probation, councils were held and the spirit children were instructed in matters pertaining to conditions in mortal life, and the reason for such an existence. In the former life we were spirits. In order that we should advance and eventually gain the goal of perfection, it was made known that we would receive tabernacles of flesh and bones and have to pass through mortality where we would be tried and proved to see if we, by trial, would prepare ourselves for exaltation. We were made to realize, in the presence of our glorious Father, who had a tangible body of flesh and bones which shone like the sun, that we were, as spirits, far inferior in our station to him” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:57).”
– Official LdS Church Manual

The Guide to the Scriptures: Angels
“There are two kinds of beings in heaven who are called angels: those who are spirits and those who have bodies of flesh and bone. Angels who are spirits have not yet obtained a body of flesh and bone, or they are spirits who have once had a mortal body and are awaiting resurrection. Angels who have bodies of flesh and bone have either been resurrected from the dead or translated.”
– Official LdS Church website

JESUS CHRIST
- Jesus Christ is the brother of Lucifer (Satan), every human being past and present, and the angels.

cover

The LdS Church Education System Seminaries and Institute of Religion, “Pearl of Great Price Student Manual – Religion 327″

Where you’ll find it:
“Pearl of Great Price Student Manual – Religion 327″, chapter entitled, “Moses 1:12 – 23 – Satan Commanded Moses to Worship Him”
“The importance of not accommodating temptation in the least degree is underlined by the Savior’s example. Did not he recognize the danger when he was on the mountain with his fallen brother, Lucifer, being sorely tempted by that master tempter? [see Matthew 4:1–11 .] He could have opened the door and flirted with danger by saying, ‘All right, Satan, I’ll listen to your proposition. I need not succumb, I need not yield, I need not accept – but I’ll listen.’”
– Official LdS Church Education System Seminaries and Institute of Religion manual
(also see “The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball”, p.163;  and “Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball”, pp.107-108)

“Gospel Principles”, pp.17-18 [1997 edition]
“Our Father said, ‘Whom shall I send?’ (Abraham 3:27). Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said, ‘Here am I, send me’…” [NOTE: this passage is missing from the current - that is, 2009 - edition]
– Official LdS Church Manual

“Gospel Principles”, pp.17-18 [1997 and 2009 editions]
“Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying, ‘Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor’ (Moses 4:1).” [1997 and 2009 editions]
– Official LdS Church Manual

“Gospel Principles” p.15 [2009 edition]
“After hearing both sons speak, Heavenly Father said, ‘I will send the first.’ (Abraham 3:27).”
– Official LdS Church Manual

Milton R. Hunter (Mormon Seventy), “The Gospel Through the Ages”, p.15
“The appointment of Jesus to be the Savior of the world was contested by one of the other sons of God. He was called Lucifer, son of the morning. Haughty, ambitious, and covetous of power and glory, this spirit-brother of Jesus desperately tried to become the Savior of mankind.”

John A. Widtsoe (Mormon Apostle), “Joseph Smith – Seeker After Truth”, pp.156-157
“In the grand council called to ratify the Father’s plan, a great difference arose. The majority, led by the First Born of the Father, our Elder Brother, Jesus the Christ, was ready to accept the plan with all its conditions. The minority, led by Lucifer, a ‘son of the morning,’ feared the isolation and the pains and ills of earth. For them Lucifer proposed that they should be sent to earth, but that provisions should be made by which they would suffer no pain and would not have to make any sacrifices. All of them would be returned with earthly bodies irrespective of their works on earth. This latter plan seemed desirable that one-third of those present favored it, in direct opposition of God’s plan. Lucifer and his followers were thrown out of the council, and as opponents of God’s plan, became the devil and his angels, who strive ever to tempt men to disobey the laws of God.”

Joseph F. Merrill (Mormon Apostle) “Conference Report”, April 1941, p.49
“According to our teachings, Satan and an army of supporters were cast down to earth from the premortal spirit world. They are spirit brothers of ours, and are real persons having spirit bodies.”

- Jesus Christ made atonement for sins in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Where you’ll find it:
Thomas S. Monson (LdS Prophet), “At Parting”, April 11, 2011 General Conference Address
“Now, before we leave today, may I share with you my love for the Savior and for His great atoning sacrifice for us. In three weeks’ time the entire Christian world will be celebrating Easter. I believe that none of us can conceive the full import of what Christ did for us in Gethsemane, but I am grateful every day of my life for His atoning sacrifice in our behalf.”

This image is from the official LdS Church website with the following caption: "The emblems of the sacrament (communion) that are taken weekly in worship services are symbols of His Atonement."

This image from the official LdS Church website with following caption: “The emblems of the sacrament (communion) that are taken weekly in worship services are symbols of His Atonement.”

M. Russell Ballard (LdS Apostle), “The Atonement and the Value of One Soul,” Ensign, May 2004, p.84
“There in the quiet isolation of the Garden of Gethsemane, He knelt among the gnarled olive trees, and in some incredible way that none of us can fully comprehend, the Savior took upon Himself the sins of the world. Even though His life was pure and free of sin, He paid the ultimate penalty for sin – yours, mine, and everyone who has ever lived. His mental, emotional, and spiritual anguish were so great they caused Him to bleed from every pore (see Luke 22:44; D&C 19:18). And yet Jesus suffered willingly so that we might all have the opportunity to be washed clean – through having faith in Him, repenting of our sins, being baptized by proper priesthood authority, receiving the purifying gift of the Holy Ghost by confirmation, and accepting all other essential ordinances. Without the Atonement of the Lord, none of these blessings would be available to us, and we could not become worthy and prepared to return to dwell in the presence of God.”

Ezra Taft Benson (LdS Prophet), “Five Marks of the Divinity of Jesus Christ,” Ensign, Dec 2001, p.8
“It was in Gethsemane where Jesus took on Himself the sins of the world, in Gethsemane where His pain was equivalent to the cumulative burden of all men, in Gethsemane where He descended below all things so that all could repent and come to Him. The mortal mind fails to fathom, the tongue cannot express, the pen of man cannot describe the breadth, the depth, or height of the suffering of our Lord – nor His infinite love for us. Yet there are those who arrogantly declare the most pernicious heresy, that the blood which extruded from the physical body of our Lord on that night had no efficacy for the redemption of man. They would have you believe the only significance to Gethsemane was that Jesus made His decision there to go to the cross. They say that any suffering Jesus endured was only personal, not redemptive for the whole human race. I know of no heresy more destructive to faith than this, for the individual who so accepts this delusion is beguiled to believe that he can achieve exaltation on the basis of his own merit, intelligence, and personal effort. Never forget … that ‘it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do’ (2 Ne. 25:23).”

CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY
The significance of these missing doctrines is magnified when you realize that they are the key tenets of modern Latter-day Saint theology.  For example, no investigator of the Mormon Church can escape the importance and significance of the First Vision – after all, LdS Missionaries are told to memorize it and mention it frequently in their conversations with those that they’re proselytizing.[4]  And as former LdS Prophet and President, Gordon B. Hinckley noted well in his Fall 2002 LdS Church General Conference address: 

“Our whole strength rests on the validity of that [First] vision. It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens. I knew a so-called intellectual who said the Church was trapped by its own history. My response was that without that history we have nothing. The truth of that unique, singular, and remarkable event [The First Vision] is the pivotal substance of our faith.”
– “The Marvelous Foundation Of Our Faith”, General Conference, October 2002

Title page from a first edition 1830 Book of Mormon

Title page from a first edition 1830 Book of Mormon

And in relation to the Book of Mormon, as Theologian Rob Bowman of The Institute for Religious Research notes regarding the First Vision: 

“A Mormon might say that the Book of Mormon does not refer to it because it had not yet happened. But I would point out that in LDS mythology the First Vision is the most important event in history after the resurrection of Christ, and the Book of Mormon contains supposed prophecies about future events — including the Anthon transcript incident. One would think it would prophesy the event that initiated the Restoration.”
(Comment on the “Evangelicals Discussing Mormonism” Facebook page Monday, June 30, 2014 at 6:58am note: membership in group required to view content) 

Further, as we noted in “A Documented History of Joseph Smith’s First Vision” the LdS Church didn’t even publish the First Vision account that Mr. Hinckley and Mormon Missionaries depend so heavily on until March 15, 1842 – nearly twelve years after the publication of the Book of Mormon – and even then, it wasn’t canonized as a part of LdS Scripture until  October 10, 1880, over 50-years after Joseph Smith brought the Book of Mormon and his new religion forth.[5]

And the other “Missing In Action” Book of Mormon doctrines that we’ve addressed here, while perhaps not as vital as the First Vision, are still critical to modern Latter-day Saint theology. Simply put, take them away and Mormonism ceases being the unique, one-of-a-kind religion that is it and becomes irrelevant.  That will be the topic of our next article where we’ll then demonstrate how the Book of Mormon actually contradicts these unique Mormon doctrines and, instead, teaching something surprisingly – perhaps even shockingly – different. 

NOTES
[1] Oh by the way, we got all those quotes from chapter 5 of “Preach My Gospel” the LdS Church’s official training manual for it’s missionaries.

[2] From “Church Handbook of Instructions, Handbook 1: Stake Presidents and Bishops”, 2010 Edition, p.12
“A waiting period of at least one full year after confirmation is required before a worthy adult may be endowed. When issuing temple recommends for new members to be endowed, priesthood leaders ensure that the date that the endowment will be received is at least one full year from the member’s date of confirmation, not from the date of baptism. Only the First Presidency may authorize exceptions”

[3] Please don’t take the author’s word for it, watch it yourself by clicking here (hidden camera video of the entire LdS Temple endowment Ceremony) or here (full transcript of the entire LdS Temple endowment ceremony).

[4] From “Preach My Gospel” pp.31–46, which is the LdS Church’s official missionary training manual:
Memorize Joseph Smith—History 1:16–17
Memorize Joseph Smith’s description of seeing the Father and the Son (Joseph Smith—History 1:16–17), and always be ready to describe the First Vision using his own words. Do not rush through it. Bear sincere testimony that you know it is true. Do not hesitate to explain how you came to know of its truth. Invite your companion to do so as well.”

[5] The First Vision was canonized as part of the LdS scripture known as “The Pearl of Great Price”:

“The Pearl of Great Price is a selection of choice materials touching many significant aspects of the faith and doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These items were translated and produced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and most were published in the Church periodicals of his day.

The first collection of materials carrying the title Pearl of Great Price was made in 1851 by Elder Franklin D. Richards, then a member of the Council of the Twelve and president of the British Mission. Its purpose was to make more readily accessible some important articles that had had limited circulation in the time of Joseph Smith. As Church membership increased throughout Europe and America, there was a need to make these items available. The Pearl of Great Price received wide use and subsequently became a standard work of the Church by action of the First Presidency and the general conference in Salt Lake City on October 10, 1880.”
(Introduction to The Pearl of Great Price)

Acknowledgement:
The author would like to acknowledge the following internet web page – which this article was inspired by, based on, and built from: “Current Mormon Doctrines Not Found in the Book of Mormon”.

by Fred W. Anson
On his May 20, 2014 Heart of the Matter broadcast Shawn McCraney read the follow email from “Michelle”:

Michelle Email 01

Michelle Email 02

The email from Michelle read on the May 20, 2014 Heart of the Matter broadcast

Screen shots of the email from Michelle read on the May 20, 2014 Heart of the Matter broadcast

He then spent about 6-minutes (from 6:42-13:01 in the broadcast) using this email as validation for his rebellion against Christian orthodoxy and as a soapbox to (in his typical backhanded, thinly veiled manner) rail at his critics from. In the end, I don’t think that Michelle’s questions and issues were addressed and I think that they deserve and need to be – so here’s my response:

DEAR MICHELLE
Let me first say, “I get it!” I was in a Mind Control Cult for 13-years so I know how confusing and challenging transitioning out of one can be. Further, when one is leaving an authoritarian group it’s natural to feel stung and not want to trust authority figures – that is, any authority figure – again. And like Mormonism my group was filled with formal and informal rules too so I can certainly appreciate your apprehension about them. And, of course, when you’ve been deceived by false teachings and white washed, spin doctored versions of the group’s history it’s only natural to be on “high alert” when approaching a new church.

It took me 4-years of searching before I found a good church family and I made some bad turns into some groups with less than sterling doctrine and practices during that time. I’ve come to find out that for those of us coming out of cults this is actually pretty normal. In my case, I went from a large authoritarian Mind Control Cult (The Shepherding Movement) that was being run by a bunch of experienced, mature, controlling old dudes to a mainstream denominational church was that essentially being run “man behind the curtain” style by a false prophetess and then to a small authoritarian church that was being run by a bunch of inexperienced, immature, controlling young dudes.

Can someone say, “Ouch?”  Well we could, but since it’s so common for cultists to leave one errant or abusive group only to find themselves in another one, perhaps it would be better to say, “We have met the enemy and it is us!”

SAME MOTH, NEW FLAME
The reason why we former cultists are so prone to this type of error Michelle is because the past – whether we realize it or not – feels comfortable to us. As a result we’re drawn to the old and familiar like a moth to a flame – so we tend to be same moth, new flame. That’s why I find your attraction to Shawn McCraney so concerning.

Michelle, I would ask you to stop for a moment, take a deep breath, and think about what Shawn McCraney’s has been saying in both in concept and in words lately:

  • That Christian churches who adhere to historic Christian orthodoxy are wrong.
  • Their creeds are an abomination in God’s sight.
  • Their professors are all corrupt and motivated by things other than the truth.
  • They’re treating Shawn’s communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, even saying it may be of the devil.
  • As a result, there’s prejudice against Shawn among these corrupt, self-interested professors of religion.
  • And that all the above is the cause of a great persecution of Shawn.
  • Further, his circumstances in life are such as to make Shawn of no real consequence in the world.
  • Yet despite all this men of high standing are taking notice sufficient to excite the public mind against him.
  • But Shawn has an inner witness that he can’t deny, lest he offend God and come under condemnation.
  • And so he continues to bring forth new revelations week after week after week.

Sound familiar? Yes, I’ve used Joseph Smith’s 1838 First Vision account as my template in describing Shawn’s basic, recurring message but I’ve done so because the shoe fits. Tell me, is there anything is that list that doesn’t match the themes and principles Shawn has been teaching lately?

MothInFlame

Same moth, new flame

Thus I found this assessment particularly astute and to the point:

“… a former Mormon, he is mainly targeting other former Mormons and disaffected Mormons. Without a ‘nod to Joseph,’ he is playing on their ingrained prejudices and leading them into another counterfeit of Biblical Christianity. Mormonism is often categorized as a Christian cult, because it primarily targets those from a Christian background. You don’t see many Mormons trying to evangelize Muslims. Similarly, Shawn is targeting those from a Mormon background. This is why I would loosely call it a Mormon splinter group.”[1]

Further, have you noticed how Shawn launches pre-emptive strikes against his critics? Joseph Smith did that too didn’t he Michelle?[2]

In fact, essentially wasn’t that the gist of how he responded to your email on the air?  Of course it was couched in terms of how you will be subjected to the same “persecution” that he has if you continue to “seek truth” in the same deaf, stubborn, rebellious, rogue, and obstinate “wild ass” (his description of himself at “Inquisition 2014″) fashion that he has.  Make no mistake about it Michelle, he was only talking to you tangentially – his real audience was his critics. And in the end, didn’t it all seem and sound something like this:

“Our religious principles are before the world ready for the investigation of all men, yet we are aware that all the persecution against our friends has arisen in consequence of calumnies and misconstructions without foundation in truth and righteousness. This we have endured in common with all other religious societies at their first commencement.”
– Joseph Smith, 1836[3]

Yes, it’s all very “Joseph Smith” isn’t it Michelle? I would ask you to think about that.

BECOMING A NEW MOTH
Michelle, I’ll be honest, it wasn’t until I began to change my way of thinking and became willing to consider getting outside of my comfort zone that I broke out of those old cult ways of thinking, evaluating, discerning, and behaving and finally got knit into a healthy, functional, Biblical church family. I would encourage you to do the same.

Now I know that you may not realize it but your email displayed some pretty strong Mormon tendencies. For example, in Mormonism defining and establishing the essential doctrine of the faith is pretty much impossible since they can change at any time. That’s why Joseph Smith was able to write “scripture” that was pretty much aligned with orthodox 19th Century Protestantism (the Book of Mormon, The Lectures on Faith, The Joseph Smith Translation) but then utterly contradict it with heresy old and new in what followed (The Book of Commandments, Doctrine and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price). It’s why polygamy can be denied in one prophetic regime, an essential practice required for exaltation in the next, publicly abandoned (but still secretly practiced) a few years later, and then grounds for excommunication just a little over a decade later.  It’s why at first a trinitarian God can be taught, followed by a modalistic god, who’s finally followed by a pantheon of henotheistic gods. It was once even taught that Adam is God in Mormonism. All this begs the question, “What’s next in Mormon theology?”  And the fact of the matter is that nobody knows isn’t it?

My point is that in Mormonism the idea of adherence to a fixed set of essential doctrines of the faith is a foreign (perhaps even discomforting) concept. Exhibit A of this would be so-called “Cafeteria Mormonism” in which as long as one toes the lie publicly to the current set of doctrine, privately one can believe whatever one wants to. That’s why the old joke about how one could talk to ten different Mormons about what they believe walk away thinking that they’re all in ten different churches is so poignant. Michelle, I can even tell you about unbelieving Latter-day Saint atheists whose private apostasy was known to their bishop but he still allowed them to practice callings as Gospel Doctrine and/or Priesthood Quorum teachers because they “played the game” publicly.

With Biblical Christianity this isn’t the case – there is an established set of essential doctrines that one must privately believe in and publicly confess in order to be considered a Christian. And it’s the Bible itself that establishes and reveals those doctrines.[4] Groups that deviate from those essential doctrines are known as cults and those who teach doctrine contrary to them are known as false teachers, or even heretics. That’s why Christians can say with authority that Mormonism is a cult and Joseph Smith a false teacher and a heretic. It’s also why we can declare Shawn McCraney’s false, unbiblical teachings heretical as well.

SAY HELLO TO BOUNDARIES
Biblical Christianity has boundaries Michelle. As the Apostle Peter said, “… no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” (2 Peter 1:20 KJV) and as a Christian you are joining a community of Spirit filled saints that for over 2,000 years has read, loved, struggled with, and sought God over the correct interpretation of His written revelation of Himself to man. Michelle, we’re all fallen sinners prone to error and the great “cloud of witnesses” (the one that Hebrews 12:1 describes) can be of great value and benefit in guiding us in sound Biblical interpretation if we’ll listen to them through their creeds, sermons, writings, and lives. In fact even their flaws, foibles, follies, and mistakes can be instructive! No, Church History isn’t the Bible but it’s important. After all, as Elizabeth Browning said well:

“Always learn from experience – preferably someone else’s”

Further, the Bible is clear that we also need to be in a part of and accountable to the living community of saints:

“…submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
(Ephesians 5:21 NLT)

“…encourage one another and build one another up…”
(1 Thessalonians 5:11 ESV)

“And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”
(Acts 2:42 ESV)

“For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints…”
(1 Corinthians 14:33 ESV)

That’s why I found your statements about “having this war against rules” and your praise for Shawn McCraney’s “explanation of culture” troubling. Michelle, like it or not the Bible is full of rules. So there’s nothing wrong with rules as long as they’re biblical is there? Further, Shawn McCraney’s explanation of culture is nothing more than a contrived, unbiblical rationalization for his own rebellion, teaching of heresy, and leading others into dangerous error. Once again, it’s just Joseph Smith all over again isn’t it?

It’s my prayer that you will reconsider your stance on both because I must respectfully say that you’re not showing much insight, wisdom, or discernment on either of them. Yes, I know that the Mormon Church and other cults misuse and abuse spiritual authority, submission, and accountability so this may not be want you want to hear right now. And I know that due to the overbearing legalism of Mormonism you may find what I have to say next hard to believe, but the Bible tells us that mutual accountability and submission to one another is for our own protection due to our fallen nature and propensity to sin:

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?”
(Jeremiah 17:9 ESV)

“Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.”
(Proverbs 27:17 ESV)

“Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. For if they fall, one will lift up his fellow. But woe to him who is alone when he falls and has not another to lift him up! Again, if two lie together, they keep warm, but how can one keep warm alone? And though a man might prevail against one who is alone, two will withstand him — a threefold cord is not quickly broken.”
(Ecclesiastes 4:9-12 ESV)

Shawn McCraney is a great example of what happens when a Christian rebels against spiritual authority and refuses to listen to other wiser, more mature, experienced Christians. As James White said well of Shawn, “He does not realize that the people who are showing him the greatest love are the people who are warning him, ‘You’re goin’ down the wrong road!”[5]

SOME FINAL ADVICE
So Michelle, my final advice to you is this:

      1. Ignore Shawn McCraney’s bad, unBiblical advice and teachings.
      2. Be courageous in rethinking your Mormon comfort zone and presuppositions.[6]
      3. Find a good Church where the Bible is the final authority and is regularly taught.
      4. Be humble.
      5. Be teachable.
      6. Be in community.
      7. Be accountable.

On that third note (and so you don’t go through too much culture shock all at once while you’re transitioning) I would recommend that you try to find a church that’s in the Wesleyan/Methodist tradition. I make this recommendation because the Mormon Chapel liturgy was “borrowed” from the 19th Century Methodist church. Specifically, that means finding and attending a Methodist, Nazarene, Wesleyan, or Holiness church. And I would recommend that you stick with the “Traditional” (rather than the “Contemporary”) service as it’s closest to the 19th Century style liturgy that you’re familiar with in the Mormon Church.

Again, the most important thing with any church that you attend is that they love, respect, teach, and obey the Bible. Never the less, all too often transitioning Mormons are off-put by modern expressions of worship that are too far afield from the traditional Latter-day Saint Chapel service. If you want to try or move on to a different, more contemporary type of corporate worship later it’s up to you but I would recommend that you stick with the traditional “Methodist style” until you find your “sea legs” in modern mainstream Christianity.

And if you need help in finding a good church just let me know – I’ll be happy to help you out.

I hope that this helps Michelle and may God richly bless you in your quest to find a new church family outside of Mormonism. I (and I’m sure many others) will be praying for you.

A new moth

A new moth

NOTES
[1] Daniel Jason Wallace in the “Evangelicals Discussing Mormonism” Facebook Group.

[2] There are many, many, many examples of Joseph Smith’s public posturing and pre-emptive strikes against critics.  Please consider these merely a sample:

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam…Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet”
(History of the Church, vol. 6, p.408-409)

“If you tell them that God made the world out of something, they will call you a fool. But I am learned, and know more than all the world put together”
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.350-352).

“…how very strange it was that an obscure boy, of a little over fourteen years of age…should be thought a character of sufficient importance to attract the attention of the great ones of the most popular sects of the day, and in a manner to create in them a spirit of the most bitter persecution and reviling. But strange or not, so it was…I have thought since that I felt much like Paul”
(from Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith-History 1:23-24).

“God made Aaron to be the mouthpiece for the children of Israel, and He will make me be god to you in His stead…and if you don’t like it, you must lump it!”
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.363).

“I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is…God himself was once as we are now and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret…I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see”
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.345)

[3] History of the Church, vol. 2, p.460; from a letter from Joseph Smith and others to John Thornton and others, July 25, 1836, Kirtland, Ohio, published in Messenger and Advocate, Aug. 1836, p.358.

And if you would like to read even more examples of how Joseph Smith used, and how the LdS Church still uses, this tactic of demonizing critics in order to alienate followers from them, please see “Teaching of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith”, Chapter 32.  This is a common Mind Control Cult tactic Michelle – all cults do it.

[4] In a nutshell the Essential Doctrines of the Christian faith are:

1) The Deity of Jesus Christ
Jesus is eternal God who incarnated Himself as a man. He is fully God and fully man.

2) Salvation by Grace alone through faith
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast,”
(Eph. 2:8-9, NIV).

“You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace”
(Gal. 5:4).

This verse and its context plainly teach that if you believe that you are saved by faith and works then you are not saved at all. (Read Rom. 3-5 and Gal. 3-5)

3) The resurrection of Jesus Christ
“And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith,” (1 Cor. 15:14). “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins,”
(1 Cor. 15:17).

To deny the physical resurrection is to deny that Jesus’ work was a satisfactory offering to God the Father. It would mean that Jesus was corrupt and needed to stay in the grave. But, he did not stay because his sacrifice was perfect.

These verses clearly state that if you say that Jesus did not rise from the dead (in the same body He died in — John 2:19-21), then your faith is useless.

4) The Gospel
The gospel message which in its entirety is that Jesus is God in flesh, who died for sins, rose from the dead, and freely gives the gift of eternal life to those who believe. Furthermore, it would not be possible to present the gospel properly without declaring that Jesus is God in flesh per John 1:1,14; 10:30-33; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:8.

5) Monotheism
There is only one God in all existence (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5,14,18,21,22; 46:9; 47:8)

A fuller discussion of these essential doctrines of the faith can be found in Theologian Matt Slick’s superb “Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith”. I used Mr. Slick’s article for this brief endnote primer and for portions of the main article above.

[5] James White, “Ukraine, Hyper-Calvinism, David Allen, Shawn McCraney, and More!”; March 6th, 2014, at time stamp 1:09:00.

[6] By the way, a good Christian Mormons in Transition group or program can be very helpful here. If you can’t find a good one in your area, please consider the Institute of Religious Research’s online transition support group.

by Michael Omartian

Add up the wonders,
And all of the numbers that people do,
So much comes to nothing.

They ride all their sorrows
On a wave of tomorrows,
Just to get them through.
Then watch the tide come rushing.

dreamwashedaway

But You can lift my spirits high,
Like no one has before.
You’re not like this world,
You’re something more.

And You have filled my life with joy.
There’s so much love around You.
Your freedom has freed me too.

Gather the gladness,
In the rush hour madness,
Sell it all for a dime.
Someone will come to buy it.

MorningRushHourFreeway

Make a short cut to living
Without any giving,
And wait for a time.
Someone will always try it.

But You can lift my spirits high,
Like no one has before.
You’re not like this world,
You’re something more.

And You have filled my life,
With all the love that flows around you.
Your freedom has freed me too.

On with the choices
And the unhappy voices,
on the telephone line.
Another day to work through.

cold_call

At the end of the maze
And the spiritual haze,
It will all be fine,
Cause I’ve got you to come home to.

(From the album “White Horse” by Michael Omartian)

by Fred W. Anson
This article continues the running timeline of events surrounding Shawn McCraney’s departure from mainstream Christian orthodoxy into error and heresy which was comprised Part 1 of this series. While the reader is encouraged to read through the previous timeline from the beginning (which can be found by clicking here) to gain a fuller historical context, the events, issues and actions outlined here, I believe, speak for themselves.   

April 22, 2014
After a long hiatus Shawn McCraney resumed teaching on the nature of God.  While prior lectures were primarily on God the Father and Christ, this lecture focused on the Holy Spirit – who Mr. McCraney asserts isn’t a person due to certain gender neutral Greek words that are used in the original languages that our English Bible is translated from.

April 23, 2014
This author leaves the following comments on the YouTube page for this show.  They are promptly hidden from public view by the Heart of the Matter personnel who administrate the page for Mr. McCraney:

First Comment by Fred W. Anson
As the saying goes, “If you point one finger at others you’re just pointing four fingers back at yourself.” 

The posturing quotes that preceded Shawn’s appearance on this show certainly demonstrated that principle given what Shawn taught about the Holy Spirit in this episode.* Those quotes, once again, were:

Chuck Colson
“The greatest friend of truth is time, her greatest enemy is prejudice, and her constant companion humility.”

Goethe
“There is more frightening than active ignorance.”

J.L. Borges
“Truth never penetrates an unwilling mind.”

Now I know for a fact that Charles Colson would most certainly not agree with what Shawn taught about the Holy Spirit tonight or how he’s behaving in his ministry. In fact, having read quite a bit of Colson’s work over the years it’s easy to imagine him telling Shawn that he’s ignorant, confused, and in need of some quality training and discipling before he does any more damage by errantly and heretically teaching Christian doctrine.

And I doubt that even the pantheistic humanist Goethe** or the agnostic humanist Jorge Luis Borges*** would agree with much, if anything, that Shawn taught in this show either. Rather, they would reject it if nothing more than for the fact that his reasoning and logic is so blatantly flawed and fallacious.

Further, Shawn abused every source that he cited in support of his position. I can safely say that every Christian source that Shawn cited in his lecture would tell him that he’s in error, teaching heresy regarding the nature of God, and drawing wrong conclusions based on their work based on his own confirmation bias – or, if you prefer, prejudice.

No, Mr. Craney those of us who are publicly criticizing your work aren’t perfect but neither are we close minded. We’re challenging and denouncing what you’re teaching not out of prejudice or because we’re proud but because what you’re saying simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

So feel free to rally your followers behind manipulative pull quotes if you wish, however, if I were you, I would pay more attention to those four fingers that are pointing back at you – they’re trying to tell you something.

* Shawn taught that the Holy Spirit isn’t a person separate and distinct from God the Father and God the Son.

** See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Wolfgang_von_Goethe

*** See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Luis_Borges

Second Comment by Fred W. Anson
Shawn’s argument that the Holy Spirit isn’t a person is hardly new. In fact, among other places, it has been addressed and rebutted rather nicely in this article from December 12, 2013:
How Do We Know the Holy Spirit Is a Person?
by Justin Taylor, The Gospel Coalition
One potential argument that the Holy Spirit is a person is to look at the Greek words in John 14:26, 15:26, and 16:13-14. There we see that the antecedent of the masculine ἐκεῖνος (a masculine word for “that person”) is πνεῦμα (a neuter word for “Spirit”). Hence, so the argument goes, the Spirit is a person. Unfortunately, that argument likely doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

A more fruitful approach is first to ask a question almost no one asks: how do we know that the Father is a person? How about the Son?

The answer is that the Bible presents a person as a substance that can do personal and relational things (such as speaking, thinking, feeling, acting). Something that does these personal things in relationship—like God, angels, and human beings—is a person.

How does the Holy Spirit fare up under this criteria?

1. The Spirit teaches and reminds.
John 14:26, “the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

1 Corinthians 2:13, “We impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

2. The Spirit speaks.
Acts 8:29, “the Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go over and join this chariot.’

Acts 13:2, “While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’”

3. The Spirit makes decisions.
Acts 15:28, “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements.”

4. The Spirit can be grieved.
Ephesians 4:30, “do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.”

5. The Spirit can be outraged.
Hebrews 10:29, “How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has . . . outraged the Spirit of grace?”

6. The Spirit can be lied to.
Acts 5:3, 4, “why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit? . . . You have not lied to men but to God‘”

7. The Spirit can forbid or prevent human speech and plans.
Acts 16:6-7, “they went through the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia. And when they had come up to Mysia, they attempted to go into Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus did not allow them.”

Justin Taylor of The Gospel Coalition

Justin Taylor of The Gospel Coalition

8. The Spirit searches everything and comprehends God’s thoughts.
1 Corinthians 2:10-11, “the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. . . . no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.”

9. The Spirit apportions spiritual gifts.
1 Corinthians 12:11, “the same Spirit . . . apportions [spiritual gifts] to each one individually as he wills.”

10. The Spirit helps us, intercedes for us, and has a mind.
Romans 8:26-27, “the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.”

11. The Spirit bears witness to believers about their adoption.
Romans 8:16, “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.”

12. The Spirit bears witness to Christ.
“But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.

13. The Spirit glorifies Christ, takes what is Christ, and declares it to believers.
John 16:14, “He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”
(source = http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2013/12/12/how-do-we-know-the-holy-spirit-is-a-person/ )

I’m sure that are equally good – possibly superior – articles on this subject, but this one is short, sweet and to the point. It’s also fully supported by scripture.

I challenge Shawn to address the issues raised in this article on his next show. 

April 25, 2014
Theologian Rob Bowman issues the following 3-part statement on Facebook regarding this episode: 

I watched Shawn McCraney’s broadcast from Tuesday, April 22, in which he laid out several objections to the Trinitarian view of the Holy Spirit as a person. I sent Shawn an email in response the next day. Having not heard from Shawn, and having not received any response from him to my previous efforts to offer constructive criticism, I am sharing here what I said to him in that email. I will present my response in three posts here.

I have been waiting for Shawn’s lecture on the Holy Spirit for weeks, because I fully expected that he would have greater difficulty with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit due to the fact that there is no Incarnation involved. That is, I expected that he would have greater difficulty maintaining some sort of distinction involving the Holy Spirit while rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity. I was correct. Since during the broadcast he explicitly mentioned me as a scholar who might offer him some insight or correction on at least one point he made, I gave him plenty to consider.

Rob Bowman lecturing on the February 25, 2014 Heart of the Matter broadcast

Rob Bowman lecturing on the February 25, 2014 Heart of the Matter broadcast

Let me begin by quoting my summary of his lecture on March 18 (which I posted here on Facebook). Sorry I don’t have a transcript of his remarks, but I think this is a fair summary of what he said then.

“The audio was off for a few minutes, but apparently Shawn compared God’s eternal nature of being God, his Logos (Word), and his Pneuma (Spirit) to man’s being body, soul, and spirit. Such an analogy is clearly monarchian: it characterizes God as a single person with three aspects of his being. According to Shawn, before the Fall, those three aspects were really difficult to distinguish from one another (even for God?), and likewise man’s three aspects were so fully integrated as one that they could hardly be distinguished. Before the Fall, there was no Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When man fell, God, in order to save us, divided or splintered himself into three, becoming Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (apparently not right away, since on Shawn’s view there was no Son until the Incarnation). In this new, sharp threeness God acted to redeem us in order to restore us to full integration as body-soul-spirit beings in the new birth. All of this sounds very much like monarchianism, but then Shawn threw in the comment that God, his Logos, and his Pneuma had relationships with each other before creation, though what those were Shawn said he doesn’t know. As he has done every time I have heard him, Shawn contradicted himself. God, the Logos, and the Pneuma cannot have relationships with one another if they are simply different aspects of the one God, like my body, soul, and spirit (or like they should be!).”

Now, the above doctrine was problematic enough, but at least in some of what Shawn said one could optimistically hope that he viewed the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as genuinely distinct, as each someone in relationship with the other two, and therefore as largely orthodox in substance even if he rejects orthodox theological terms. At one point in that broadcast he even referred to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as “three persons,” though only after creation, not before it. However, in his most recent lecture he moved even further away from orthodox doctrine (and, I emphasize, biblical doctrine, as I shall explain). The Holy Spirit, he claimed, is simply God’s power or presence, an “it,” just a way of describing God expressing his presence or power. He claimed this to be true in both the Old and New Testaments. Sadly, there is no way this can be salvaged as anything but heretical.

Shawn asserted, “The Holy Spirit is the power, the DUNAMIS, of God. Scripture talks about it being the power of God.” Yes, Scripture does talk about the Holy Spirit as the power of God. It also calls God “the power of God” (Luke 22:69) and refers to Christ as “the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:24). Does that make God or Christ impersonal? Of course not. Here is a blog article I wrote on this point:

http://www.religiousresearcher.org/2013/03/19/definition-by-parallelism-bad-arguments-against-the-personhood-of-the-holy-spirit-5/

In my next two posts, I will address the other arguments he presented.
(source = https://www.facebook.com/ApolojediMaster/posts/10202992044018003?stream_ref=10 )

The second of three posts by Rob Bowman
Shawn argued—and this was his main point—that PNEUMA is neuter and that the Greek New Testament uses neuter pronouns in reference to the Holy Spirit. On this basis, Shawn concluded that the Holy Spirit is not a person, because “it’s an it.” Well, if PNEUMA is neuter and if neuter means “it’s an it,” as he claimed, then Shawn has just proved that God is an it! After all, Jesus said, “God is PNEUMA” (John 4:24)! Notice that this is the second argument he used against the personhood of the Holy Spirit that, if applied consistently, would disprove the personhood of God as well. But Shawn went on immediately to answer his own argument, though he didn’t seem to realize he had done so. He pointed out that languages like Greek commonly assign masculine or feminine gender to nouns that do not denote persons, such as _la bicicleta_ (“the bicycle”) in Spanish. This was apparently his rebuttal to the observation that “Comforter” is masculine in Greek (PARAKLETOS). There’s a problem with that rebuttal, as I will explain in my third and last post. But his point about nouns having gender is a good observation, but one he did not take far enough. It is also the case that languages can assign “neuter” gender to nouns denoting persons. In German, _das Mädchen_ means “the maiden, the girl,” and obviously denotes a person, yet it is neuter in grammatical form. Similarly, the Greek PAIDION is grammatically neuter, but it denotes “child,” again referring to a person. Jesus is called a PAIDION eleven times in the New Testament (Matt. 2:8, 9, 11, 13 [2x], 14, 20 [2x]; Luke 2:17, 27, 40), all in reference to the period of several years after his birth. Matthew uses the neuter pronoun auto in reference to “the child” Jesus: “Rise, take the child [PAIDION] and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him” (Matt. 2:13 ESV). Here the ESV uses “him” to translate the Greek pronoun AUTO (as does the KJV also). Luke uses the same pronoun AUTO in reference to Jesus as PAIDION twice (Luke 2:28, 40). Translators use masculine pronouns in English to represents neuter pronouns in Greek if the antecedent of the pronoun refers to a person. It’s as simple as that. Here’s an article I wrote that goes into this subject further:

http://www.religiousresearcher.org/2013/03/14/neuter-pronouns-mean-not-a-person-bad-arguments-against-the-personhood-of-the-holy-spirit-1/
(source = https://www.facebook.com/ApolojediMaster/posts/10202992048538116?stream_ref=10 )

The third of three posts by Rob Bowman
A third argument Shawn presented was an objection to the use of the definite article “the” in English translations with the title “Holy Spirit.” He asserted that the article is “often added by translators, leading the reader to think that ‘the Holy Spirit’ is referring to a separate person.” Well, there are many places where the Greek has the article in front of the words for “Holy Spirit,” such as Matthew 28:19 (TOU hAGIOU PNEUMATOS), Mark 3:29 (TO PNEUMA TO hAGION), John 14:26 (TO PNEUMA TO hAGION), and quite a few others. (TOU and TO are both forms of the Greek article.) I assume Shawn would agree with me that the Greek writers of these books were not misleading readers by using the article. The fact is that Greek uses the article in a different way than English does. We normally use the article in front of what we call titles (the Father, the Messiah, the Lord, the king, etc.) but not in front of what we call proper names (Jesus, Peter, Shawn, Rob). Greek doesn’t work that way. Proper names and titles in Greek can occur with or without the article; usage is quite complicated and sometimes little more than a matter of style. The expression “in Christ” in Paul usually does not have the article (EN CHRISTW), but of course this doesn’t mean that Christ is something other than a person. And sometimes Paul writes “in the Christ” (EN TW CHRISTW), but English versions nearly always omit the article (1 Cor. 15:22; 2 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 1:10, 12, 20).

Shawn also argued that if translators had simply used impersonal pronouns to translate the neuter pronouns referring to the Spirit (it, its, itself, etc.), “the case for the personality of the Holy Spirit, the person, would largely disappear from Christian belief.” That is true only of the most superficial popular way that contemporary English-speaking Christians try to defend the personhood of the Holy Spirit. The KJV often used neuter pronouns when the Greek pronoun was neuter, and the KJV translators and their readers were all Trinitarians. They had no trouble seeing the person of the Holy Spirit in the Bible.

Finally, Shawn suggested that it is only “a few comparative difficult verses in the Gospel of John” that seem to refer to the Holy Spirit as a person, and he stated somewhat disparagingly that “those verses are used over and over again to prove that the Spirit is a person.” Later he suggested these could be explained away as personifications, like wisdom in Proverbs 8. But Jesus was not speaking in poetry in John 14-16, and the same things that Jesus says about the Spirit in John 14-16 are said about Jesus himself in the same book. For example, the noun PARAKLETOS clearly refers to a person, and Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as “another PARAKLETOS” (John 14:16), meaning another besides himself. In his epistle, John – the same author as the Gospel of John, of course – refers explicitly to Jesus Christ as our PARAKLETOS (1 John 2:1). PARAKLETOS is not a noun that just happens to be masculine but that normally refers to something impersonal, like _la bicicleta_ (“the bicycle”) happens to be feminine. PARAKLETOS is a personal noun, denoting someone who provides support, assistance, counsel, agency, mediation, or the like. If Shawn wished to claim that the noun doesn’t refer to the Spirit as a person, this would be something he would need to show exegetically from the context, which he has not done.

Moreover, the case for the personhood of the Holy Spirit does not depend on John 14-16 alone. His personhood can be shown from many other parts of the New Testament, especially the Book of Acts. But John 14-16 is in the Bible and must be taken seriously, not shoehorned into a doctrinal system derived from the superficial observation that the Old Testament doesn’t advance a specific doctrine of the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Such an approach denies God the right to unfold his self-revelation in history and in Scripture progressively, as though God should have front-loaded Genesis 1 with a systematic theological exposition.
(source = https://www.facebook.com/ApolojediMaster/posts/10202992049818148?stream_ref=10 )

Closing Thoughts
Perhaps it should be noted in closing that the doctrine that the Holy Spirit isn’t a person is only held to by Christian Cults such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians, Oneness followers, Hebrew Roots, Christadelphians, The Way and other Anti-Trinitarian groups.  This is hardly an encouraging sign for those of us who are hoping and praying that Shawn McCraney will find his way back to Biblical orthodoxy and bring those that he has led astray through such false teaching along with him.

Further, engaging in censorship of critics and those who are trying to help him find that way back is certainly an unwelcome trend – and one that’s odd for someone who has been so free in his condemnation and criticism of the LdS Church for engaging in such tactics with their critics.

We will continue to monitor the situation with Shawn McCraney and will add updates to this article as noteworthy events unfold.

UPDATES
April 29, 2014
Shawn McCraney states emphatically the Holy Spirit isn’t a person separate and distinct from God the Father and God the Son and reiterates his rejection of the Trinity.  Shawn also explains the reasoning behind shutting down the “Heart of the Matter with Shawn McCraney” page on Facebook.   This episode is also unique in that it is the first Heart of the Matter YouTube posting with comments disabled on the page.

Following the broadcast Rob Bowman issues the following response on this Facebook page:

Shawn McCraney (“Heart of the Matter”) concluded his series of lectures against the doctrine of the Trinity a couple of hours ago (though I wouldn’t be surprised if it comes up again). He gave a list of arguments against the personhood of the Holy Spirit. I won’t go through them all right now. However, I will point out that many of Shawn’s arguments against the personhood of the Holy Spirit, if applied consistently, would also “disprove” that God the Father is a person, or that Christ is a person.

(a) Shawn makes a big deal of the fact that “Holy Spirit” is never capitalized in the Greek. Neither is “God,” “Christ,” “Jesus,” or “Father.” For that matter, neither is “Peter,” “Paul,” or “Mary” (sorry, couldn’t resist). Ancient Greek manuscripts were written with all block letters, and later a cursive form developed that used what we call lower-case letters. But in biblical times, there was no upper-case and lower-case lettering system.

(b) Shawn points out that Christ and the Spirit are both called Parakletos; both are said to intercede for us (Rom. 8:26, 34); both are said to have been given to us by God. How these things prove that the Holy Spirit is not a person, I don’t know. If anything they might seem to prove that the Holy Spirit is Jesus. (They don’t. For example, John 14:16 calls the Holy Spirit “ANOTHER Parakletos,” making it clear that the Holy Spirit is not Jesus but is someone like him.) But Shawn doesn’t (usually) make that claim. At one point, though, Shawn cites 2 Corinthians 3:17-18 and concludes that it means that Jesus is the Spirit. If so, then, by Shawn’s own reasoning, either Jesus is not a person or the Holy Spirit is a person.

(c) Shawn repeated his argument from the previous week that the Holy Spirit is called the power of God in Luke 1:35. This is not correct, but if it were, it should be noted that the Bible calls God “the power of God” (Luke 22:69) and refers to Christ as “the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:24). So by Shawn’s reasoning, God and Christ are not persons.

(d) Also last week, Shawn had argued that the Holy Spirit is not a person because the Bible uses a neuter noun, PNEUMA, and neuter pronouns in reference to the Holy Spirit. However, the Bible also uses the neuter noun PAIDION (“child”) and neuter pronouns in reference to Jesus. Jesus is called a PAIDION eleven times in the New Testament (Matt. 2:8, 9, 11, 13 [2x], 14, 20 [2x]; Luke 2:17, 27, 40), all in reference to the period of several years after his birth. Matthew uses the neuter pronoun auto in reference to “the child” Jesus: “Rise, take the child [PAIDION] and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him” (Matt. 2:13 ESV). Here the ESV uses “him” to translate the Greek pronoun AUTO (as does the KJV also). Luke uses the same pronoun AUTO in reference to Jesus as PAIDION twice (Luke 2:28, 40). So once again, by Shawn’s reasoning, Jesus, at least when he was a child, was not a person.

The tragedy is that all of these errors could easily have been avoided, if Shawn would have listened to sound teachers and studied these things carefully before publicly teaching on matters he doesn’t understand.
(source = https://www.facebook.com/ApolojediMaster/posts/10203026200951905?stream_ref=5 )

April 30, 2014
Rob Bowman offers this clarification and response to one of the call-in questions regarding the doctrine of the Trinity that was asked on  the April 29th Heart of the Matter broadcast:

In response to a caller’s question last night about Matthew 28:19, Shawn McCraney resorted to the claim that the fourth-century writer Eusebius supposedly testified to an original form of the text in which Jesus said to baptize disciples “in my name” instead of what we find in all of the Greek manuscripts. Many anti-Trinitarians continue to repeat this claim today, though it is difficult to find contemporary exegetical commentators or textual critics who will support it. Eusebius quotes the triadic phrase in full five times when quoting Matthew 28:19; the one place he doesn’t is simply a paraphrase, not a full quotation. The triadic phrase is found in all Greek manuscripts of Matthew that contain the passage and is attested in several second-century Christian writings. For a critical scholarly refutation of the abuse of Eusebius, see Benjamin Jerome Hubbard, _The Matthean Redaction of a Primitive Apostolic Commissioning: An Exegesis of Matthew 28:16-20_, SBL Dissertation Series 19 (Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, 1974), 151-75.
(source = https://www.facebook.com/ApolojediMaster/posts/10203029256908302?stream_ref=10 )

May 6, 2014
Prior to his weekly Heart of the Matter lecture Shawn McCraney offers an Anti-Trinitarian critique of Matthew 28:19 claiming that it is a deliberate post-Nicene Trinitarian manuscript corruption that didn’t appear in the original. That verse reads, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” (ESV), and is theologically noteworthy as a direct apostolic affirmation of the Trinity by Matthew.  

The lecture that followed is difficult to summarize because it was such a jumble of mixed metaphors and ideas – it was essentially on how no one has the right to judge or criticize the theology of anyone who professes Christ or claim that they’re going to hell as a result of their doctrine or beliefs. He did this by starting with a full whiteboard of different groups (Catholics, Baptists, Pentecostals, Arminians, Calvinists, Seventh-day Adventists, Calvary Chapel, Latter-day Saints, etc.) all boarding the “Jesus Plane” that later crashes killing everyone on board.  

He then asked the following series of open ended questions:

“Who would you say is gonna go to hell?”

“What would determine their entrance into heaven?” 

“Wouldn’t everyone of these active, faithful religionists lay claim to Jesus?”

“What would be the trait that proves that they had faith in Jesus?”

Shawn stated the answer to getting into heaven is through grace by having faith in Christ’s atonement which  manifests itself in one’s life by exhibiting the kind of  Christian love that Christ taught and practiced.

Further, he insists that true Christianity manifests itself in the kind of love that wouldn’t throw or keep others off the Jesus Plane and wouldn’t criticize those that are on it.  He went on to strongly imply that those who who insist on orthodoxy in theology and doctrine are false loving, hard hearted, pride filled, hypocritical, controlling, power hungry Pharisees who have no right to criticize the doctrine of the others on the plane – and are in fact, getting in the way of leading themselves and others to true, saving love.  That is, their hearts aren’t right.

But he then went to say that in coming weeks he will criticize and speak out against those that claim to be Christians but deviate from “what’s right according to the Bible” – like the LdS Church for example.  This assertion was also reiterating during the call-in section of the show.

At the end of his lecture he stated that the majority of those on the “Jesus Plane” are going to hell. But that’s OK because those who go to hell will be OK in the end because hell is much different than what others have taught about it in the past.  He promised to explain this more fully in the weeks to come.

This author is persuaded that much of this lecture was yet another attempt by Shawn to silence his critics – this was more apparent in the tone, timbre, snide comments, and attitudes in the lecture than the content alone.  The reader is encouraged to watch the lecture yourself and determine if the author’s assessment is accurate or not.

Episode 393 White Board_edited

May 9, 2014
Theologian Rob Bowman issues the following statement on Facebook regarding Mr. McCraney’s critique of Matthew 28:19:

On May 6, Shawn McCraney reiterated more emphatically his acceptance of the anti-Trinitarian claim that Matthew 28:19 did not originally say “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” According to this argument, Matthew 28:19 originally said “baptizing them in my name,” and the text was changed by the Trinitarians in the fourth century following the Council of Nicaea in 325. In support, Shawn offered two arguments that are commonly made. The first is that no NT Greek manuscript from prior to Nicaea contains the triadic wording in Matthew 28:19. The second point is that Eusebius of Caesarea often quoted Matthew 28:19 using the words “in my name,” and only began quoting it with the three names after Nicaea. As with most of his other arguments against the Trinity, Shawn is simply repeating arguments commonly made by anti-Trinitarians, especially in this case Unitarians and Oneness Pentecostals.

It is true that no Greek manuscripts prior to Nicaea contain the traditional text of Matthew 28:19. However, that is not as shocking as it sounds, and this fact in no way undermines the reliability of the traditional text. The fact is that we have no extant pre-Nicene Greek manuscripts of Matthew containing Matthew 28:19 at all. We have pre-Nicene Greek papyri fragments covering about a fifth of the Gospel of Matthew. Matthew 28:19 just happens to be one of the passages not among the extant papyri. There is an easy to understand reason why: Matthew 28:19 comes at the very end of the Gospel. Papyrus manuscripts were highly fragile, and it was common for them to be damaged especially at the beginning and end. This is why, for example, there are Greek manuscripts of Matthew that end earlier in Matthew 28, just a few verses from the end: the last page was lost or highly damaged.

ALL of the extant Greek NT manuscripts that have Matthew 28:19 have the traditional wording. There is no exception. The earliest extant Greek manuscripts containing Matthew 28:19 date from the fourth and early fifth centuries. One notable fact about these manuscripts is that they represent three different textual “families” or scribal traditions, conventionally known as the Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Western text types. This includes Sinaiticus (א) and Vaticanus (Alexandrian text type), dated 325-360, Alexandrinus (which, despite its name, is Byzantine in type in the Gospels), dated ca. 375-450, Washingtonianus, another Byzantine text dated about 400, and Bezae, a Western-type text also dated about 400.

We also have manuscripts of the NT in Coptic and Latin containing Matthew 28:19 that date from the fourth century. These manuscripts, especially one of the Coptic texts, attest to an independent scribal tradition of translation from before Nicaea. They confirm that the traditional text of Matthew 28:19 is correct.

If the anti-Trinitarians were right, it would mean that the correct wording of Matthew 28:19 was not preserved in a single ancient manuscript in Greek or in any of the languages into which the NT was translated. That claim requires a conspiracy theory to work, but such a conspiracy theory simply doesn’t fit the facts.

When Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 without the three names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, he also omits the words “baptizing them,” and only sometimes includes the words “in my name.” It is evident from a careful study of his quotations generally that weight should not be put on his exact wording. That there was no conspiracy involved is proved by the fact that Eusebius sometimes uses the full quotation with the three names and sometimes his shorter version even in the same writing!

Finally, Shawn claimed that no one before Nicaea quoted Matthew 28:19 in its traditional form. That was simply false. The traditional form is attested in the Didache (ca. 80-120), Justin Martyr’s First Apology (155-57), and Tertullian’s On Baptism (ca. 200), to name just three texts dating not only before Nicaea but within about a century of the NT writings.

It is very sad to see Shawn repeating such distortions of the facts of Scripture to support his rejection of the Trinity.
(source = https://www.facebook.com/ApolojediMaster/posts/10203090956370750 )

NOTE: As excellent as Mr. Bowman’s statement is on it’s own, the reader is strongly encouraged to use the link to the original post and consider the equally superb comments that others – many whom are Theological Heavyweights – added beneath his statement. I think the reader will find them to be a wealth of wisdom as well as instructive and enlightening.

 

Last Supper Paint by Numbers Kit
by Fred W. Anson

There was a time when the Mormon Expression podcasts had a way of provoking thought and challenging me to “go deeper”. For example, a bygone podcast on D&C 8 and 9[1] contained an interesting analysis and spirited panel discussion on how Joseph Smith described and practiced the process of receiving revelation.

Going directly to the source:
“I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart. Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation.”

(D&C 8:2-3a)

“Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me.

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.”
(D&C 9:7-9)

Well that sounds (like all the D&C revelations do) somewhat profound and quite spiritual when taken on it’s own at face value and in isolation. However, when the text is fully considered in light of the historical context given in the headnotes it’s hard to escape the possibility that they’re more indicative of something else: Manipulation.

Here are those headnotes:

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet to Oliver Cowdery, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, April 1829. In the course of the translation of the Book of Mormon, Oliver, who continued to serve as scribe, writing at the Prophet’s dictation, desired to be endowed with the gift of translation. The Lord responded to his supplication by granting this revelation.”
(headnote for D&C 8; retrieved date of post)

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet to Oliver Cowdery, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, April 1829. Oliver is admonished to be patient and is urged to be content to write, for the time being, at the dictation of the translator, rather than to attempt to translate.”
(headnote for D&C 9; retrieved date of post)

Thus,  when viewed in light of their historical context, is it possible that these two revelations are nothing more than an example of the kind of “thus saith the Lord” style prophetic utterances and made-for-the-moment revelations that have always been used within abusive churches and cults as a means of controlling the membership in general – and chafing, unruly members in particular?

Notice how in these interrelated revelations Oliver Cowdery is first dangled the carrot of the promise that he will be able to translate if he stays faithful (D&C 8) but then given the stick that that this divine gift will have to wait until he’s done fulfilling his current role of service to Joseph Smith as his scribe rather than attempting his own translations (D&C 9:3-5) . Of course, it’s Smith who’s conveniently receiving this timely reprimanding, correcting revelation (D&C 9).  He’s also told not to “murmur” about any of this (D&C 9:6). Folks this is nothing new and has been a standard tool of manipulation by cult leaders since time immortal.

Further, when all the revelations are taken as a whole, the Doctrine & Covenants meta-narrative seems to indicate that this dynamic of manipulation was in play in each of the revelations. This is readily apparent in that they’re all rather formulaic and quite often repetitive. This is even more apparent when one reads them chronologically[2] not skipping over the headnotes, and still more apparent when you combine all that with a good understanding of True Mormon History.[3]

Specifically the pattern that emerges is the following formula:

R=(c+d)t

Where:
R = Revelation
c = challenge
d = desire
t = threat intensity accelerator
(the bigger the threat the bigger, more grandiose, was the resulting R)

I’ve dubbed this pattern, “The Joseph Smith Formula”.

For example, let’s take a look at D&C 132, the infamous revelation sanctioning (more precisely, “mandating”) polygamy. Here is the official church headnote giving the historical context for this revelation:

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831. See Official Declaration 1.
( headnote for D&C 132; retrieved date of post)

Take that and then factor in a good understanding of the true Mormon History that surrounded the coming forth of D&C 132[4] and here’s what emerges:

R = God requires the faithful to practice polygamy.
c = Emma Smith knows of Joseph’s adulterous affairs and isn’t happy with them.
d = Joseph Smith is having adulterous affairs (as are several Mormon Leader insiders), wants to continue them, and wants to have more.
t = Emma Smith might publicly expose Joseph’s adulterous affairs thus causing a scandal that could potentially under mind, even destroy the LdS Church.

Last Supper Paint by NumbersTherefore the Threat Intensity Accelerator is quite high in this case. In fact, I would say that on a scale of 1-10 it’s about an eight or nine, possibly even a ten. And as a result you get a long, rambling, grandiose revelation recast and delivered in the second person voice of God voice rather than the human author’s.

And you see this pattern again and again and again in Doctrine & Covenants. In fact, I would assert that one can take any alleged revelation in Doctrine & Covenants (including the Official Declarations) and this formula applies.

Pick a section and try it.

NOTES:
[1] Episode 139b: D&C 8 and 9 for Dummies Part One
http://mormonexpression.com/2011/06/07/139-dc-8-and-9-for-dummies-part-1/

Episode 139b: D&C 8 and 9 for Dummies Part Two
http://mormonexpression.com/2011/06/07/139b-dc-8-and-9-for-dummies-part-2/

The other podcasts on Doctrine & Covenants revelations as of the date of writing are:
Episode 118a: Polygamy Manifesto for Dummies Part 1
http://mormonexpression.com/2011/03/01/118a-polygamy-manifesto-for-dummies-part-1/

Episode 118b: Polygamy Manifesto for Dummies Part 2
http://mormonexpression.com/2011/03/01/118b-polygamy-manifesto-for-dummies-part-2/

Doctrine and Covenants 132 for Dummies Part 1
http://mormonexpression.com/2010/11/episode-95a-doctrine-and-covenants-132-for-dummies-part-1/

Doctrine and Covenants 132 for Dummies part 2
http://mormonexpression.com/2010/11/episode-95b-doctrine-and-covenants-132-for-dummies-part-2/

The Civil War Prophecy (D&C 87) for Dummies
http://mormonexpression.com/?p=588

[2] A Chronological Listing of D&C can be found at:

Doctrine & Covenants: Chronological Order of Contents
http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/chron-order?lang=eng

[3] I use the term “true Mormon History” here to distinguish and juxtapose against the “Faithful Mormon History” that’s taught by the the LdS Church via it’s Church Educational System and many LdS Mormon Studies Scholars. See “Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History” Edited by George D. Smith; Signature Books, 1992; http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=10550 for a good primer on this topic.

[4] A good, short quick primer on the true Mormon History surrounding D&C 132 can be found in the aforementioned “Doctrine and Covenants 132 for Dummies Part 1″ podcast or in the first few sections of the Wikipedia article on “Mormonism and Polygamy” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_polygamy ) as well “The Wives of Joseph Smith” website (see http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/ )

(This article was originally published on the Mormon Expression Blogs site on June 21, 2011. This edition has been lighted edited, revised, and expanded to reflect the passage of time and  additional insight and knowledge acquired since then.)

sanctify
Sanctify
Here I am in that old place again
Down on my face again
Crying out I want you to hear my plea
Come down and rescue me

How long will it take
How long will I have to wait?

And all I want is all you have
Come to me, rescue me,
Fall on me with your love
And all you want is all I have
Come to me, rescue me,
fall on me with your love

Sanctify I want to be set apart
Right to the very heart
Prophesy to the four winds
And breathe life to this very place

How long will it take?
How long will I have to wait?

And all I want is all you have
Come to me rescue me,
Fall on me with your love
And all you want is all I have
Come to me rescue me,
Fall on me with your love

Lifted up I’ve climbed with the strength I have
Right to this mountain top
Looking out the cloud’s getting bigger now
It’s time to get ready now

Written by Stuart Garrard/Martin Smith ©1997 Curious? Music UK

The legendary performance of this song by Delirious? at Wembley Stadium

The final performance of this song in London

by Cory Anderson
Lead Pastor,  Shadow Mountain Church;  West Jordan, Utah

Introduction:  One of the criticisms that’s often thrown at Shawn McCraney’s critics is that they fail to present their grievances to him privately per the first step in “The Matthew 18 Formula” (see Matthew 18:15-20)  before they go public with them (the second and third steps).  In reality, over the years many have met with Shawn only to be met with resistance, stubbornness, and in some cases hostility.  

A case in point was Shadow Mountain Church Lead Pastor Cory Anderson’s March 4th, 2014 lunch meeting with Shawn which ended in Mr. McCraney creating an embarrassing public scene at the restaurant.  After much consideration and conversation with other Christians Pastor Anderson has made the following appeal public – both as a chronicle of the event and as an attempt to turn Mr. McCraney around from the bad path that he’s currently on.  (Editor) 

The following letter is in response to a letter I received from Shawn after our lunch together on March 4th. Here is the order of events.

1) I attended Inquisition 2014 (like everyone else I was blindsided).
2) I followed up with an invitation to Shawn to join me for lunch so I could address my concerns.
3) Lunch went poorly when Shawn treated me disrespectfully and created a scene.
4) I followed up with an email to Shawn.
5) He replied to let me know his perspective of the lunch (which he has requested remain private).
6) What follows was my reply to him.

Good afternoon Shawn,

I want to offer a reply to your recent email/letter communication with me. See below:

First, I want to thank you for acknowledging your error in not reading my email invitation to lunch. I understand how you felt at lunch because you had a different set of expectations because you did not read the email in its entirety where I had made it plain what my intentions were.

Cory Anderson

Cory Anderson

Second, just for the record, I have never served in the military and the t-shirt I was wearing was not a tight fitting martial arts shirt. It was a baggy one that had Unified Brazilian Jiujitsu on it. I am a practitioner of BJJ. That much is true. I cannot help it if I look the way I do. I often get thought of as a wrestler, football player, hockey player, military man etc…

Third, I did have documents in front of me because I had planned on talking with you about your actual statements instead of trying to do some summation of what you said. I believe it’s good to look at actual quotes and that this is the best way of being fair to you.

Fourth, not everything I addressed with you was spoken by you ‘in the heat of public confrontation’ as you commented in your letter to me. I have watched other shows where you are not in the heat of confrontation and you display the same poor behavior.

Fifth, are we not supposed to approach someone who claims to be brother and speak with them about our concerns? I sought to do this with you and expressed myself with gentleness and you then accused me of coming at you pastorally. Is this not how I am supposed to approach a brother? I approached you that way because I am a pastor and I try to handle things with gentleness and respect.

Sixth, I did address several very important issues with you.

• The Trinity
I spoke at length with you on this subject because of your failure to represent accurately the doctrine of the Trinity. You did make heretical statements and also contradicted yourself. I have the manuscript evidence to prove it. As a teacher it is vital to be able to handle the truth accurately, but you did not do that (James 3:1; Titus 1:5-9). I also addressed the issue because you went on the attack against the doctrine of God and also the men in history who drafted the creeds.

You revealed that you had not done your homework and yet you sought to attack something you know very little about. Please tell me your sources for your comments on the history of the Trinity? I would like to know exact names of authors and titles of papers. I already did a preliminary search online and found very little of anything in support of your jaded view of the history. So, I ask you to please point me to the sources. You cannot go on the attack, make statements that are fallacious, and then fail to offer sources. Whether you like it or not, you will be held accountable for your teaching and as a Pastor the only way I can do that with you is to warn you and then warn my church family. Please, please, please, show me the sources so I might check out the evidence.

• Character
I expressed my concerns over your use of Job 39 because you used this text which does not even speak of human beings and applied it to yourself in a way that appeared to justify your ungodly behavior. I asked you about other texts which speak to Pastors/Elders and broadly to all Christians (not animals) regarding godly character and you seemed to dismiss these. Not once have you expressed godly sorrow (2 Cor 7) over your behavior.

Shawn McCraney and Utah Pastor Jason Wallace at Inquisition 2014.

Shawn McCraney and Utah Pastor Jason Wallace at Inquisition 2014.

It is true that we all make mistakes and we all sin, the problem is that you have not owned your sin and the ungodly way you have behaved. My mistake in standing up at the “inquisition” is acknowledged, but you have gone on to make that a larger issue that it was. Don’t forget that you are the one who went on the attack at the inquisition by calling out Pastor Bryan and then falsely accusing him. You provoked, and I responded by getting up. My only mistake was not staying seated.

The big difference I am seeing is just as I stated it to you when we met. I own what I do that I consider wrong, but I have not heard that from you. As a man of God, this is not about being ‘orderly and exact and demanding excellence, proper conduct and linear thought’, this is about being godly. When I read the text about character I want to do what the text says. I want to be a godly example, even though I know I will never be perfect. I am trying always to mortify the flesh as Paul says in Col. 3:5. I had hoped that you would have met with me, or at least followed up with an email expressing your godly sorrow for your sinful behavior (using the F-word, telling me to shut up, telling me to repent, calling me a hypocrite, talking to me from across the restaurant, calling yourself a wild ass, etc…I could go on) and a desire to change that behavior so your ministry would not be hindered, but thus far you have not done this.

I admit, this deeply saddens me and I don’t think it is too late to publicly repent for your poor character and the way you treat others. By the way, in your email you expressed that I was trying to make you more like me, but that is the last thing I desire for you. I want you to become more like Jesus. I want to become more like him and that also includes godly character. Shawn, can you please show me how your life and what you do on your HOTM [Heart of the Matter] show reflect 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9?

• Divisiveness
I expressed my concern over your divisive behavior in how you have publicly dealt with the churches. While you say you have not mentioned any of them by name, you have still made it clear that they are the top 10 largest churches. It’s not difficult to figure out who you are referring to in a valley like ours.

My concern was not that we express our concern over some of the negative things within evangelicalism today, it was the manner in which you have publicly and privately attacked pastors and churches without talking privately with those pastors. Can I ask you if you have sat down with Paul Robie from SMCC in Draper? Did you respond to Paul’s several attempts to get with you? Did you sit down with any of them to understand what they are doing or express your concerns?

When I asked what your concerns were, you mentioned pastors being money grabbers and interested in their buildings. How can you do this without knowing them, talking with them and first seeking clarification? Can you judge the heart as you have done? A good example of this divisive behavior is how you treated me during our lunch and then what you wrote to me in your last email. You stated:

Shawn McCraney

Shawn McCraney

“I purposely chose to rock little Cory’s world. Admittedly, I smile every time I think about it. But please know it was all purposeful and I truly hold no animus toward you. From my estimation you needed to have a bit of a wake-up call, my friend. You needed someone to call you out on your own shit, someone to let you know that your insights are seem by some as infantile, and that you ought to get the beam out of your own eye before attempting to sit down and remove mine.

The quiver in your face and water in your eyes let me know I struck a nerve on you putting your congregates under a burden with the term tithe – and when this fear, this inner guilt manifested itself on your countenance, I admittedly went in for the jugular. My bad. But it still makes me smile.”

A few notes of clarification. First, just for the record, you definitely did NOT rock my little world. When I read this comment I wondered if we were at the same meeting. Do you really think that being asked about tithing would rock my little world? Do you really think that I have not thought long and hard about tithing? Do you really think I have not had discussions with others about tithing?

Second, I did not receive a wake up call. I have no idea what you mean by this comment. Nothing you said ‘woke me up.’ I am totally awake already. What was I supposed to wake up from?

Third, your character is again showing through in your reference to my dung (sh__).

Fourth, I am again baffled as to the quivering in my face and the watering in my eyes that you refer to. Maybe you are thinking of a different meeting with a different man. No Shawn, I did not quiver or get teary. How bizarre that you would even think this. How odd that you would think that you ‘stuck a nerve’ and that some fear and inner guilt manifested itself in me.

No Shawn, you completely misread everything to such a degree that I honestly think you must be thinking of some other meeting. I have not since changed my view on tithing and have not been given one single reason from you to abandon it. If you wanted we could have had a gracious conversation about tithing, but you escalated it into an attack and pointed your finger in my face and called me to repent. You even judged my motives and accused me of being a money grabber and one who counts the money myself.

Please repent of all this behavior.

A comment or two on Tithing. I wonder if you have so much LDS background still in you that this causes you to immediately assume that a Pastor who preaches tithing is preaching it the same as the LDS church. I don’t preach tithing the same as the LDS church and the pastors I know that do preach tithing do not preach it the same either. We are not putting people under the burden of the law and have a very strong understanding of grace.

I think the real issue here is your LDS background that continues to cause you to overreact without understanding how various Christians understand a subject. I have really good friends who are godly men who preach the tithe and I have other godly men I know who do not preach the tithe. I have amazing fellowship with them as brothers and have never been poorly treated by them for my view and I have never poorly treated them. It is for this very reason that you should have spoken with these pastors you attacked on your show before you attacked them so that you might understand them better.

A word about my public sharing of information: You stated:

“I love you as a brother and hold no animus over the fact that you ran home and immediately (in what could only have been a preemptive strike to protect yourself) posted things about me and our private meeting on Disgracebook. And I have forgiven you for the cowardice of getting on the phone and talking this meeting up with other people in the body who have subsequently contacted me to show their allegiance to you. It’s all okay.”

Shawn, while I appreciate your extension of forgiveness to me, I do not think I need forgiveness for publicly sharing information about our meeting. At some point, people need to be warned about someone with beliefs and behavior like yours.

I am not the first to contact you and attempt to do so privately. You have had many opportunities to humble yourself and repent and yet you still remain unrepentant and freely accuse others as if you are the victim. At some point, when does the church warn the church about such behavior (Matthew 18:15-20)? Titus 1:10 is a good text to consider. If you were dealt with publicly it was because you needed to be dealt with publicly (Galatians 2:11-14).

I did share the information on Facebook[1] and someone called in unknown to me.[2] However, remember that when we met you made it very clear that you were going to talk about me on the show. I am glad you did not, but you still stated you would.

You also said many others things to me during that lunch that were uncalled for and ungodly. I have given you an opportunity to repent and so have others. It is still not too late for you to make amends with everyone on HOTM and all the local pastors. I think you will find a lot of grace. Your behavior is not only affecting the local ministry, but others outside of Utah are taking notice (James White & Rob Bowman).

Shawn, in your letter you mentioned not wanting to discuss this again and that if we ever meet again, then hopefully it will be better than the last time. The only way that we will meet again is if you humble yourself, repent of all your sin and seek to make peace with those of us in this valley who love Jesus deeply and have ministries that champion grace and the gospel. I would honestly welcome that.

I am not concerned if you use this private email publicly and I am also not bound by your desire to keep your letter to me a private one. I will wait for your repentant response to determine if I need to make public your last letter to me so that others can read how you have treated me.

If you do not acknowledge your errors, then I don’t know what you expect us to do as Shepherds in this valley. We have a responsibility to watch out for the flock that God has entrusted to us. Please have a change of heart for the sake of Utah, the LDS community that needs to be reached, and the Pastors who labor so faithfully in the valley.

I will be sharing this information with my elders since I am accountable to them and they need to understand what has transpired with you.

Sincerely,

Cory Anderson

About the Author: 
Cory is the lead pastor of Shadow Mountain Church in West Jordan, Utah. He holds a B.A in Theology from Briercrest Bible College and a M.A in New Testament from Briercrest Biblical Seminary. Prior to launching Shadow Mountain Church, Cory served as an Associate/Youth Pastor for 7 years in Canada. He enjoys teaching the Word of God and providing answers to tough questions regarding theology and doctrine. He has published an article in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought entitled “Jude’s Use of the Pseudepigraphal Book of 1 Enoch” (Vol. 36, No.2, Summer 2003). He is married to Trina and has four children.

NOTES:
[1] On the afternoon of March 4th Pastor Anderson posted the following on Facebook:

“Hello everyone, I want to give you an update regarding my meeting with Shawn McCraney.

Things went well initially and then he started attacking me over teaching tithing and got in my face pointed at me called me to repent and became unbelievably obnoxious. He had people looking at us wondering what was going on. He went after this because his assessment of 10 of the biggest churches in the valley are all about money. He wanted to know where I was at. I told him that Christian people have a difference of opinion about this subject but I personally believe in tithing.

I don’t know what to say other than Shawn is an ungodly man. He made it clear that he will be talking about me on his show tonight.

I came to him and attempted to be full of grace and truth and love and treat him as a brother, and give him the benefit of the doubt regarding his misstatements about the doctrine of the Trinity.

When I spoke to him regarding what I perceived as ungodly character displayed on his show, he justified his behavior and sees nothing wrong with what he does. He acknowledged he is fleshly, and yet went on to act as if he did not need to repent of his behavior. He simply said that’s the way I Yamin God chooses to use me that way.

I am shocked!!!

My advice as a pastor: don’t have anything to do with Shawn McCraney. Stay away from him as he is very divisive and doesn’t care. Call him to repentance and that’s it.

He made it clear he is going to talk about me I his show as being a money grabber and a hypocrite.

In my departure I told him that I will be watching the show to see that he does the right thing and repents of his teaching and his behavior and he told me to shut up!

I wish I had the whole thing on video so you could see how hard I worked at being a gracious man with him and how he came out and attacked. However, if you’ve watched his show you know that he does that all the time.

Very sad.”
(source = https://www.facebook.com/groups/MormonInfo.org/permalink/10152296096122938/?stream_ref=2 )

[2] During the March 4th ” God Part 3″ Heart of the Matter broadcast at 59:50 a caller referred to the meeting that resulted in the Facebook post in note 1 above and the email exchange that ultimately lead to the above appeal from Pastor Anderson.