A Biblical Response, Part 3

Introduction

LIVE FROM THE MECCA OF MORMONISM

SALT LAKE CITY UTAH –

This is Heart of the Matter, where Mormonism Meets Biblical Christianity, face to face. Show 43 373 A Biblical Response – Part III December 24th 2013

And I’m your host, Shawn McCraney. We praise the True and Living God for allowing us to participate in this ministry. May He be with you (and us) tonight.

Biblical Christian Perspective

Well it didn’t take but four minutes to pass before I got a text telling me a federal judge struck down Utah’s ban on same sex marriage. Within ten minutes I was told that homosexual couples had lined up at the courthouse to be wed. “What do you think about this, Shawn” other texts and emails have asked. Some are petitioning me to join in to battle this with all my Christian soldier might. And so I figure I’d better weigh in on the issue.

Like everything else, my stance is from a biblical Christian perspective and NOT an American Evangelical Christian perspective. My stance is based in the life and teachings and focus of my king. Please try and hear what I am going to try and articulate. First of all, nobody on this earth will ever convince me that homosexual relations are not a sin – with sin as being defined as “missing the mark.” God has a target – long established in the Garden of Eden. One man with one woman taken from His side. In my opinion, I believe that the homosexual “community” (writ large) makes a great mistake when they try to prove or show or convince the rest of the world that their sexual expressions hit the mark God established. In light of the fact – FACT – that human life propagates by the union of semen and egg that grows in a womb automatically tells us the mark God established in the mark from the beginning. The moment a man conceives and bears life through anal sex is the moment I will defend homosexuality as hitting the mark. Until that time, it misses it. Hopefully this is clear.

But that being said, neither is it “God’s mark” that I want to bed several women down at the same time, or that Jimmy over there lies to his employer, or that Lisa over there is vain as a peacock, or whatever – the human race is gone by its own merits and legislations and this is also fact. In other words “sin” – missing the mark – is part of all human natures – it just thrives and manifests itself in different ways.

Separation of Church and State

Moving along, I am an ardent sold out supporter of the complete and total separation of church and state. I do NOT want the state involved in my religious beliefs any more than I want religious beliefs injected into the operations of the State. The reasons – if you think about it – are clear. For example, which religious beliefs get to govern in the state, and why should the state have any right on telling me what I can and cannot do in the name of God. For this very reason I think the tax-exempt status enjoyed by churches ought to be dropped completely. When this division is ignored, religions (like Mormonism) seek to establish their own theocratic governance over the masses. And if not the Mormons, than the Catholics, or the Baptists, or the whatever. If separation of church and state is upheld, then when it comes to issues relative to civil rights – where certain rights or benefits (medical, social, financial) are obtained in and through the status of certain lifestyles (being married, for instance) then I believe the state has the right to allow for any and all to receive whatever rights are granted by and through such a status.

Civil Rights and Church Influence

In other words, in terms of civil rights and the benefits obtained by marriage, I believe the state can do what the hell it wants – and the church has NO SAY in the matter at all. This does NOT change my stance on the sinful nature of homosexuality nor does

Separation of Church and State

It remove the autonomy the church must have in response to it. What I mean by this is on the other hand, since church and state are separate, and the state chooses to allow for gay marriage, it has NO say whatsoever in how any churches choose to operate in this realm. Remember? There is a separation. Therefore, it is my opinion that while the state may recognize the marriage of a chimpanzee to an elephant, it cannot dictate how the churches view such a matrimony and it has no right to sanction any church that refuses to perform such ceremonies.

In summary, I have never believed the church ought to get involved in this matter as it is a matter of “civil rights.” At the same time, the state has no right to involve itself in how the church views their decisions nor how the church decides to view them. The world is going to go where it is going to go. It is laughable that religious men allow themselves to think they can stop its progress (or it digression, for that matter). But I do believe that if the separation of Church and state is respected, then the churches ought to be completely free to do as they wish – without the threat of state sanctions against it if it so chooses to refuse, on religious grounds, to marry elephants and chimps.

Finally, I would appeal to what Jesus said about marriage – something I have never heard any Christian use in this debate over marriage, which was: “The children of THIS world marry and are given in marriage.” Isn’t that clear enough? Doesn’t that say it all? So there it is – for the record.

LDS Church and Polygamy

Well the LDS church has done it again! Another press release – and yes, it is, like the press release on “Race and the Priesthood,” this one is a little more honest but remains duplicitous (in my opinion). Let’s work through it before getting to our message tonight: The title of the article (and it was released a number of weeks ago) is:

Practice of Plural Marriage

Polygamy: Latter-day Saints and the Practice of Plural Marriage. Polygamy — or more correctly polygyny, the marriage of more than one woman to the same man — was an important part of the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for a half-century. Stop. So was polyandry – which is the marrying of more than one man to the same woman. Wonder why they don’t touch on that here too? Don’t you love the way they right off the bat set themselves up as the distributors of all Truth . . . “Polygamy, or more correctly, polygyny “. . .brother. But they do say it was an “important part of the teachings of the LDS church” (that ‘s true) for half a century (that is not).

Smith got it going early on in church history (1832 maybe) with Fanny Alger (his house maid) and so with it ending officially (meaning when the leaders really got up and said “no more” and weren’t pretending to say, “no more” (1901) almost 70 years had passed. Another way to say this would be for the Mormon church to say: “Polygamy was important to the church for nearly forty percent of our history.” Not gonna hear that. Too true.

Joseph Smith and Polygamy

The Press Release goes on saying: “The practice began during the lifetime of Joseph Smith but became publicly and widely known during the time of Brigham Young.” What a nice way to say, “Joseph Smith started taking on extra wives secretly almost from the beginning of the church and it was only when Young got everybody out here to Utah (and completely isolated) that the practice was out in the open. “Today, the practice of polygamy is strictly prohibited in the Church, as it has been for over 120 years.” Notice the wordsmithing – “Today, the practice of polygamy . . . the practice . . .” is strictly prohibited . . . failing to mention the principle of it remains alive.

Then the real spinning flows in: “In 1831, Church founder Joseph Smith made a prayerful inquiry about the ancient Old Testament practice of plural marriage. This resulted in the divine instruction to reinstitute the practice as a religious principle.” DIVING instruction (God said) To REINSTITUTE the practice (which He never instituted in the first place) As a religious principle (no, Smith instituted the principle as a religious practice – there’s a difference. The way.

The Practice of Polygamy in the LDS Church

They put it they make it sound like the practice of taking on extra wives was done as a religious principle. But it was presented as a religious principle by Smith and Young in order to dive into the practice – sex with lots of women – controlling them. Here comes “the poor, insufferable us” appeal: “Latter-day Saint converts in the 19th century had been raised in traditional, monogamous homes and struggled with the idea of a man having more than one wife. It was as foreign to them as it would be to most families today in the western world. Even Brigham Young, who was later to have many wives and children, confessed to his initial dread of the principle of plural marriage.” Ahhh, what good men they were. Ahhhh.

The 1890 Manifesto

“Subsequently, in 1890, President Wilford Woodruff, fourth president of the Church, received what Latter-day Saints believe to be a revelation in which God withdrew the command to practice plural marriage. He issued what has come to be known as the "Manifesto," a written declaration to Church members and the public at large that stopped the practice of plural marriage.” Of course they use this Manifesto in 1890 as the declaration for the practice to stop but this was a ruse to get the federal government to believe they abandoned it all together. But like everything the LDS do, this was the public representation but privately the leadership continued to practice the principle and encouraged other men to do the same. So, again, the real abandonment of the practice of the eternal principle did not occur for another 10 to 13 years. “Later, describing the reasons for the Manifesto, President Woodruff told Church members, "The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple … for all (temple sacraments) would be stopped throughout the land. … Confusion would reign … and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice."

The Legacy of Polygamy

Today Church members honor and respect the sacrifices made by those who practiced polygamy in the early days of the Church. However, the practice is outlawed in the Church, and no person can practice plural marriage and remain a member. The “sacrifices made” by those who practiced polygamy. Hey, could I rewrite this for you geniuses up there on north temple? “Today Church leadership apologizes to all the women who bought into this lie as a means to please God, their husbands, and the leaders of the church. We are sorry for all you went through and for this church allowing men to preying upon your good intentions. However, the practice is outlawed in the Church, and no person can practice plural marriage and remain a member. This being said, “we do allow for men to continue to be married in our temples to as many individual women as he’d like (as long as they are one at a time) so he can enjoy an abundance of female companionship in the life hereafter.”

The Church’s Stance on Monogamy

Then in the most Mormonitious move yet, these guys have the audacity to quote the Book of Mormon, which condemns polygamy to show that monogamy has always been standard fare in the LDS Church! This is what they say: “The standard doctrine of the Church is monogamy, as it always has been, as indicated in the Book of Mormon (Jacob chapter 2): “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. … For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” (Then they add) “In other words, the standard of the Lord’s people is monogamy unless the Lord reveals otherwise. Latter-day Saints believe the season the Church practiced polygamy was one of these exceptions.” So, get all of the straight, folks – They say the standard practice of the Lord’s people is monogamy but they have practiced (and continue to perform) polygamous marriages even to this day. They use the BOM narrative (which condemns the practice) but fail to talk about the fact that their founder

The Concept of Total Reconciliation

clearly and plainly taught that polygamy must be practiced to become a God. This religion of Man – or MORE MAN – is scrambling. For the sake of all those who remain inside and who are beguiled by their type of rhetoric, don’t back down. Call them on their schtuff. It’s the right thing to do.

Okay, two weeks ago, in an effort to offer another view of soteriology other than Five Point Calvinism and full blown Arminianism (which in many ways is the LDS view) we touched on the biblical concept of “total reconciliation,” or the notion that says

• God is totally sovereign
• His will will always be accomplished
• Being love, His will from the beginning is that all humanity would be saved.
• His Son therefore paid for the sin of the entire world.
• That by and through His foreknowledge He allows men to choose to receive His Son but knowing what they would choose, works all things to His ultimate will and ways.
• And finally, some will come to Him freely in this life (as first-fruits) and others may take “the long way home.”

The Idea of First-Fruits

In the face of this we introduced (two weeks ago) the biblical idea of first-fruits. Here we admitted that when it comes to a harvest (whether it be a harvest of wheat or fruit or Men) the first-fruits are God’s. These are the true believers here on earth. Then there is a more general harvest, of the majority so to speak and finally there is the gleanings – where the remainder left on the field or dropped are picked up so that, as Jesus said when feeding the five thousand, “that none would be lost.”

We mentioned that James said:

James 1:18: “Of his own will (of His own good pleasure) begat he us with the word of truth (according to His election based on His foreknowledge), that we (believers) should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.”

(By the way I would love for those who argue against total reconciliation to explain this verse to me.)

Supporting Total Reconciliation

So let’s continue on and see if we can support the notion of Total Reconciliation in other parts of the Word. Two weeks ago I admittedly intimated some bold things. I first suggested that hell, or more properly put, the time rebellious human beings will spend in the Lake of Fire is . . . limited. We will note the differences between hell and the lake of fire in a minute.

I’ve also intimated that SINCE we know God is love, and SINCE we know He is “all knowing” (FROM before He created any of us,) and SINCE His will and desires are always accomplished (by and through His foreknowledge NOT by force) the ONLY way to merge all of these facts (and these are biblical facts, folks) into a cohesive working model is to ultimately suggest that He will use every approach necessary (the Holy Spirit, trials, “hell,” the “Lake of Fire”) to bring all to Him some day.

In this way, I suggested, God would, through a number of different means ultimately accomplish His good will and desires. But all of this is nothing but superficial preface material if the Bible says otherwise, right? I get that. And again, I want nothing to do with anything that is not true and validated by the Word of God.

Why is it that most modern Christianity (since Augustine) have accepted the idea that punishment (after this life) is eternal and that reconciliation is anything but total. In fact and according to them very few will make it. Is it because there are so many passages in then Word (especially if we use the King James Bible) that appear to support the idea that a fiery punishment is eternal? Probably.

So (among other things) it is incumbent on me to try and explain why the terms of eternality applied to “afterlife suffering” are at best misunderstood and worst, are completely wrong. But before getting to the word study there are a couple of points that I would like for you to consider which might add to our general comprehension of afterlife punishment and this brief study on it. I also think these points will help us to more clearly see my position.

Key Issues in Christianity

POINT NUMBER ONE: There are issues to die on in Christianity – virgin birth, resurrection, divinity of Jesus, salvation by grace through faith period, infallibility of the Word of God. In my opinion these are worthy of splitting company – I

Theological Divisions and Unity

But there are a whole bunch of hills that have long divided the body and churches that ought to have never had such an effect. Echatology or end times? Fa-getta bout it. If you think you KNOW what is what – I have a few people to introduce to you who will argue you into the dust with opposing views. Calvinism? Arminianism? Preterism? mode of baptism? creation being six literal twenty-four hour periods? Don’t worry about it. Walk in faith. Smile. Trust the Lord. Because almost every issue demands some sort of give and take among believers, right?

I would suggest – strongly suggest – that the idea of hell and the Lake of Fire (and the natural result of it which is total reconciliation) should not be used as a point of division. There is NOTHING about the belief that ought to alter our walk, our pursuit of others missionally, or our hope and joy in being His. Additionally, and I hope this is obvious, but additionally there are great blessings of unfathomable depth that come when people choose in this life, to receive and believe on Jesus by faith.

Blessings for Believers

Eye has not seen the glories that await. But let me see if I can name a few.

• Believers have Him with us here being cleansed and saved in this life (isn’t that of some value?)
• Believers have the power to become Son’s and Daughters of God – something those who go to the Lake will never become because not even all believers become Son’s and Daughters.
• Believers will be called forth in the First Resurrection while the unbelievers go to hell and wait.
• Believers will be crowned by God, we will be pleasing to God! (Isn’t that awesome!)
• Believers are part of the Body of Christ here on earth and then in the hereafter!
• Believers by-pass the dark horrors of hell and the miserable purging in Lake of Fire all together! What a glorious blessing we receive by placing our faith and trust in the King. Isn’t this in and of itself reward enough to receive Him?

I am totally dumbfounded when people come at me and say stuff like this email we received today from Dustin says. Here are a couple of excerpts (listen) “What is the point then of the suffering in life? What a waste of time for Jesus to teach about broad is the way to destruction if everyone will be saved! He should have finished with destruction (but added) but hey, everyone will eventually be saved.”

Such positions completely ignore the blessing and goodness of being Christians now. Of being called His. Of suffering for Him by and through the baptisms of fire we willingly submit to in His name. But even more astounding is that such views infer that hell and the lake of fire awaiting rebellious unbelievers is just not that bad. Listen, critics – YOU are the ones who are changing scripture. You are the ones intimating that hell and the Lake of Fire are a cake walk. They’re not. And I have never suggested they were.

The Reality of Hell and the Lake of Fire

Hell (and/or again, the Lake of Fire) is a place of utter misery. We know this based on a number of biblical facts. First, Jesus became flesh to save us from it. Being love, I would suggest He knows nobody would ever want to spend any amount of time in her jaws. Second, the Bible is emphatic on how it describes hell and the Lake of Fire (which I will distinguish momentarily.) It is separation from God. At least here, we have God’s creation and influence calling to us in seven different listed ways…

• Through nature
• In conscience
• On the tables of stone
• All of scripture
• On and In Christ
• On our hearts
• In the outward lives of Christians

I would imagine none of these appeals are present or available to those living in the dark absence of the influences of the God. What it will take to bring its inhabitants to their knees is both unknown and terrifying. Additionally, since God is outside of time, and since the punishment or wrath is from Him, we have absolutely no idea of how passages of “time” work in utter burning darkness. Could it be that a moment in hell feels eternal for those there? Could it be that a hundred billion years will not be enough to bring some to faith? We don’t know. What we do know is that hell and the lake of

The Concept of Salvation and Eternal Punishment

Fire is a horrible place so we share Jesus to keep people from it! But this does not mean we have to make it something that it is not. And there is no way to explain a loving God who is omniscient and desires all to be saved who simultaneously creates a place of punishment that never ends. So stay with me. Will give you all the evidence you need in our final show of the year… next week.

Concerns and Queries from Listeners

Hi, Shawn

I just wanted to take a minute to let you know that KLOVE posted a Gordon B. Hinkley quote on the KLOVE Fan Awards Facebook page. I have sent them an email and also called and left a voicemail for their programming director. I threatened to cancel my monthly contributions to both KLOVE and Air1 radio. I thought this was worth bringing to your attention. This saddens me because I think that both stations bring a positive Christian message to Mormons in the state. We are contributors to Alathea and will continue to be as long as YHWH puts it upon our hearts to do so. God bless you and your ministry, Shawn!

— John K. Tall

Shawn, Why is there so much in the Holy Bible about being saved during mortality {2 Corinthians 6: 2 "now"} and not a single invitation or exhortation to the physically dead unbeliever? Why are there so many believers named in the Bible and not a single soul named who got saved after physical death? After all the Bible covers approximately 4,000 years of human history and Esau had sufficient time to repent in hell. In Ephesians 1: 10 the "all things" are defined in the text as what is "in Christ" already; what is gathered is what already is "in Christ" and nothing is being gathered into Christ. Aren't these "all things" the same "all things" as in Colossians 1: 20?

Lanny A. Eichert
260 South 100 West
Spanish Fork, UT 84660
1-801-798-1179
LAtrehcie@aol.com

Hello, It seems as though you do a good work and I even donated to this ministry, but I'm baffled as to why you would hold on to the label Mormon. How can one be a born again Mormon? Why don't you consider yourself a born again Christian, seeing there is a difference between the two. It sounds a lot like "Charasmatic Catholics." That tie you have with Mormonism in the realm of the spirit still needs to be severed. Someone who is born again shouldn't want to have any attachment to a theology that they know is incorrect. Just like a reasonable Christian would question someone who claims to be a Christian Buddhist. Mormonism is a man made religion and Christianity is of God through the Holy Spirit. Please consider and pray about what I'm saying.

Jesus, the Celestial Kingdom, and Mormon Beliefs

From: Curtis W. Subject: Jesus, the Celestial Kingdom & the Mormon answer?

I recently had a conversation with a Mormon missionary online and asked this question after having established the way to spend eternity in the celestial kingdom with God the Father. I asked, "Is Jesus in the celestial kingdom?" The response was a speedy "yes" from the missionary. So, I asked, "If the only way to get into the celestial kingdom is to be sealed in the temple, be married in the temple, etc., how could Jesus be there? He didn’t do any of those things." The missionary said, "I don’t know how that happened, but I know He is there."

I found this contradiction laughable but also very sad. The belief that Mormons hold to prevents their savior from entering heaven with them. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on this. The missionary just repeated that Jesus was in the celestial kingdom no matter what I said. Have any of your previous shows addressed this point?

The Full Email from Dustin

Just watched episode 371. I have to say after having watched all of your episodes but the first 30 over the last year I am amazed at how you have went in a circle. You have a ton of episodes talking about how important it is to be saved and to choose Christ in this life. Now you are saying that everyone is saved. What is the point then of the suffering in life, what is the point of the unknowing – that would make God horrible as he is playing with Man at that point. Crazy as I feel sick to my stomach watching this episode. I think you like contention and are moving from one argument to another to get that. I can only think of what Christ said on broad is the way to…

Critique of Theological Consistency

Destruction – What a waste of time for him to even bring up if everyone will be saved – he should have finished with destruction – but hey you will eventually be saved. I am worried for you brother and really can’t waste any more time watching your show and supporting it going down this path. Please stop your drafts on my accounts as it will save me the trouble of having to do it myself. Simple fact is that your last episode makes me wonder why have I fought my friends and family over the past two years and made such uncomfortable positions with trying to get them to know Christ if there is no reason to as they will be saved eventually.

Concerns on Changing Doctrines

What a disappointment. I am not saying what you are saying is not possible as I don’t limit God ever but you have now gone through the entire range and you are now countering what you said before over and over, it seems like you really like contention. All I can say is WOW. Can you please let me know when the two drafts on my account are canceled. Also remember a few episodes back when you said ”those saved will not remember those who are not” – You are all over the place. You are arguing with yourself at this point and you are saying that God gives us initial understanding and truth only to change that later. You have made the suffering of Christ worthless with your statements in this episode.

Reflections on Salvation

If there is an eternity to be saved then we might as well sit back enjoy ourselves and not worry about it. You also have used that argument on the Mormon church in that how do you keep track of what is truth when it changes. You said God was influencing you before but now he is influencing in something contradictory. Wow and Wow. God Bless!!!!