Heart of the Matter: October 13th, 2015

Live from Salt Lake City, Utah, this is Heart of the MatterTGNN’s original show where Shawn McCraney deconstructed religion and developed fulfilled theology., where we do all we can to try and worship God in Spirit and in Truth. I’m your host, Shawn McCraneyFounder of TGNN and developer of the fulfilled perspective—calling people to faith outside of religion..

The Ironic Story of Mark Postell

Show 41 467
October 13th 2015

Every now and again there’s a convergence of items in an event that cause a guy to just laugh. Wendy J forwarded me the following story which is filled with too much irony for me to pass-up on sharing.

It seems in Philadelphia Pennsylvania a man has been arrested on charges. Federal prosecutors say 52 year old Mark Postell was arrested Sunday and charged with wire fraud. So far, so good. Things start getting funny when we hear the details. Apparently Postell obtained a check that was made out to the LDS Church for $183,000.00 refund from a utility company of some sort. 183 grand coming through the mail to the LDS church as a refund? Why not, right? So Postell gets this wild idea. He creates a fake ID and poses as a “Mormon pastor.” I mean, he’s got a chance to gain 183,000.00 and he doesn’t even take the time to go online to learn what the LDS leaders call themselves!

Anyway, he goes to some check-cashing place, shows an ID with his name that has the same address on it that is on the refund check and the check cashing place BELIEVES him, and deposits the check! My own bank won’t let me cash out of state checks for a buck fifty and this guy, calling himself a Mormon pastor, cashes a 183 thousand dollar check! That was in April. Recently investigators uncovered the scheme arrested Postell. The final irony is here’s a picture of the master thief!

(SHOW PICTURE OF POSTELL HERE)

Is it me . . . or . . . I mean, have I been out of the LDS church for so long now that I’m unable to detect a true believing Mo anymore? If I could pick ANYONE in the world who did not look LDS (let alone look like an LDS “pastor”) and I think old Postell here would be in the top five – for a half dozen reasons – which I’ll let you decide what they are.

Christian Tradition vs. New Ideas

We had some guest here on Heart petitioning for people to clink to Christian tradition. They assumption seems to be that there is truth and safety in what people have always believed over new ideas that are presented today. Last week I made a plea using ocean lifeguarding as an example for Christianity to refrain from adapting to newer models of operation because in my estimation these are the strategies of Godless corporations and civil services and not the true Body.

The Case for Growth and Adaptation

I stand firm on this when it comes to worshipping God in Spirit. However, when it comes to human assessment of extra-biblical doctrines I am all FOR growth and adaptation if the Bible adequately supports change – in other words I absolutely do not believe the older ways of believing are always the best ways. Let me give you an example of this from history and the astronomic world. If we were to apply traditionalist Christian thinking to the way we think about our solar system, we would look at Aristotle and say:

“He’s an early Astronomy Father and his views ought to be trusted. So let’s read and maintain Aristotelian ideas to astronomy – because he was smart and he is old and he is traditional.”

And what did Aristotle preach concerning our Solar system? His views were geocentric – which simply means Aristotle was convinced that the sun revolved around the earth – that the EARTH was the center not only of the solar system but the universe! Aristotle posited this around 340 BC. About 450 years later a Greek astronomer named Ptolemy pops up. He’s a star in math and astronomy. The year is about 100 AD. What did he say?

He said, the earth is the center of the universe and he even explained why. He said:

If the earth was orbiting around the sun (known as the heliocentric view) then the cows and trees and fish would all get thrown around! Of if a person were to jump in the air they would land back on a spot much further away than from where they jumped from – because the earth was spinning. So there’s NO way possible that the earth revolves around the sun.

And throughout the Middle Ages it was Ptolemy’s writings and charts that ruled the world of astronomy in the minds.

Historical Challenge of Heliocentrism

The church endorsed the old views as more reliable, as traditional, and as being of God. Move with me all the way out to the 1500’s to the Religious Reformer Martin Luther. In his day a man named Copernicus had the audacity to suggest that the fathers of astronomical faith were wrong. He said that the

Speaking of Copernicus Luther said:
“There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and move. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be cleaver he must . . . invent something special and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside down. However, as holy scripture tells us, so did Joshua tell the sun to stand still and not the earth.”

John Calvin said of Copernicus and men like him:
“They pervert the course of nature by saying the sun does not move and this it is the earth that revolves and turns.”

Notice a couple of things about these quotes and their tenor. First, we are expected to trust the insight of these men on spiritual things when they couldn’t accept the wisdom of earthly things? Secondly, notice the attacks built in to those who proposed heliocentrism: Luther intimated that they were out to make a name for themselves and called them “fools” and Calvin referred to at least their views as “perverted.” Additionally, note that Luther misappropriates the words of Joshua as being right to prove Copernicus wrong when in fact the wrong one was not Joshua nor Copernicus but Luther for taking literal liberties in his understanding Joshua instead of seeing his meaning in another way.

Galileo's Support of Heliocentrism

So jump out to the early 17th century – 1609 to be exact. There was another man named Galileo Galilea, an obvious Italian, who, as a astute astronomist, picked up on Copernicus’s heliocentric views. Galileo, who once considered the priesthood, advanced so much it would take a year to describe it all. Some of it was admittedly incorrect. But what was NOT incorrect were his views that the earth revolved around the sun. In the end – for these views – Galileo would be threatened with torture if he did not recant his views.

Who threatened him? The church. The inquisition into his heliocentric works came to the following conclusions:

• He was found “vehemently suspect of heresy,” namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the earth is not at the centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. (FOR SHAWN ONLY: I love that line “after it has been “declared contrary to Holy Scripture.” Declared by who? The leaders of the church? The church fathers? The reformers?)

Galileo was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the hands of the Inquisitors. He was then commuted to house arrest which he remained under for the rest of his life. His books banned and publication of any of them was forbidden. And he was dead right. Luther was wrong. Calvin was wrong. Ptolemy was wrong. Aristotle – wrong. Did history and tradition and the minds of millions support these men and their views for almost two THOUSAND years? Sure did. But all of them were wrong.

Reflecting on Viewing Scripture

How many other things have we collectively been wrong about? How many other approaches have been crying out from scripture for better views but every time those views are introduced or considered those who introduce them are labeled bad, heretical, even not saved? How long are we going to allow ourselves to remain blind to alternative interpretations of EschatologyStudy of “last things”—TGNN teaches all biblical eschatology was fulfilled in 70 A.D. More, Ontology of God, Eternal punishment, and the idiocy of Sola Scriptura? How long will we allow other people to relegate those of us who understand the bible's beautiful content differently to obscurity.

I’m not calling for the abandonment of old views – not at all – I’m simply demanding the right to consider and even believe new views while being accepted as a brother in Christ. And with that how about a moment from the Word? (RUN FROM THE WORD HERE)

We’re in Philemon tonight and there is only one passage that emphasizes one element of Subjective ChristianityA direct, personal relationship with God—free from institutional authority, guided by personal relationship, faith and agape love. – the Christian command.

Faith and Love in Christianity

Philemon 1:4 says:

“I thank my God, making mention of thee always in my prayers, Hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints.”

Christian denominations talk a lot about what people need to do as followers of Jesus but scripture, while it admittedly does specifically speak to the believers in that day of what they ought to “be wary of,” it makes a great case that all of Christianity can be summarized by the content of Philemon 1:4.

New Testament Emphasis

Philemon 1:4 “I thank my God, making mention of thee always in my prayers, Hearing of thy love and faith, which thou hast toward the Lord Jesus, and toward all saints.”

Let me sort of walk through the New Testament and point out some of the more obvious passages that emphasize these two Christian commands –

Galatians 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith . . . did you ever notice that doctrine and knowledge is never mentioned as a fruit of the Spirit?

Ephesians 1:15 Wherefore I also, after I heard of . . . (beat) your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints,

Ephesians 3:17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love

Ephesians 6:23 Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:4 Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints,

1st Thessalonians 1:3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labor of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father;

1st Thessalonians 5:8 But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

1st Timothy 1:14 And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 1:13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.

Titus 3:15 All that are with me salute thee. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace be with you all. Amen.

The Core Commandment

And finally,

1st John 3:23 “And this is his commandment, (and THIS is HIS COMMANDMENT – AND THIS IS HIS COMMANDMENT) – That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.”

Isn’t that amazing? His commandment is to believe on His Son and love one another (as His Son said.)

Ecocentric and heliocentric views are not mentioned. Eschatology? Not mentioned. Faith and love.

Let all who receive Him as Lord and Savior receive Him by faith. And let all who claim to receive Him by faith, “love.”

And with that how about a word of prayer, which tonight will be given by

PRAYER PRAYER PRAYER PRAYER

Last week we talked about the Christian teachings popular in Joseph Smith’s day relative to the make-up or ontology of God.

We said that within followers of Jesus, there was the politically mandated Trinity, the downgraded modalists (both Sabellian and standard) and there were Unitarian views.

We then showed how the publication of the Book of Mormon (what, in my estimation ought to be considered the real beginnings of Mormonism and not a concocted first vision) proved that Smith was uncertain as to where he stood because the book contained both Trinitarian and modalist passages of the Sabellianist nature.

What gets really interesting is that several BOM passages that speak of Jesus (if read today in the revised BOM books used by the LDS Church) have been altered by the Church from the original 1830 edition.

For instance, 1st Nephi 11:21, 11:32, and 13:40) all refer to Jesus as The Eternal Father in the 1830 edition, echoing Modalism but in the current BOM have been changed to, “the Son of the Eternal Father.”

Now, like their founder, the LDS maintain that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth and that it will lead a man closer to God than any other.

This claim is made on the foundation that it has not been subject to major translations like the Bible.

But I would point out that

Theological Shifts in Early Mormon Doctrine

While the Bible has been through many translations and discrepancies between them those discrepancies are insignificant and do very, very little to alter the meaning of any passage where they are found. But to change the original books statement that Jesus is the very eternal father to the Son of the very eternal father is akin to the early Bible manuscripts reading that Mary was NOT a virgin compared to revised translations saying she was!

Speaking of Mary, by the way, The Book of Mormon in the first edition (1st Nephi 11:18) calls her plainly, “the mother of God.” In 1837 Smith changed it, as his stance on the make-up of God changed, to read, “the mother of the Son of God.” Quite frankly the modalistic dual identity of Jesus and the Father only seem to appear in the most early teachings of Smith.

Joseph Smith's Inspired Version

Here’s an amazing little fact:

Some of you know that Joseph Smith believed he had the ability to retranslate the Bible just by reading it and having “the Spirit” tell him what it really meant. His translated version is known as the Inspired Version or the JST. Well, when Smith came to Luke 10:22 in the King James, which says:

“All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.”

Well, still having a modalist mindset, Smith actually retranslated this verse to read:

“No man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but Him to whom the Son will reveal it.”

Again, these words reflect pure Sabellianism and Smith had the chutzpah to insert them into the Bible itself . . . before he started to change his mind. Whether an effort to support modalism or trinitarianism popular in his day, after the publication of the BOM in 1830 Smith’s focus on there being ONE GOD began to diminish with more and more differentiations occurring between Father and Son.

But there was one last reference included that lingered around the One God idea. It is recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 19:18 in March of 1930 and refers to Christ, as “God, the greatest of all.” By June of 1830, however, we start reading of revelations where the Father begins to take ownership of things. In this month the Father acknowledges Christ as his son then states:

“BUT there is no other God beside me.” (Moses 1:6) From this point on the Father and Son and Holy Spirit routinely called, “one God” but are more often referred to as “one Godhead.”

The Lectures on Faith and Binitarianism

In the 1835 Lectures on Faith we read:

“There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme, power over all things . . . they are the Father and the Son . . . both possessing the same mind . . . which mind is the Holy Spirit . . . and these three constitute the godhead, and are one.”

We have to note a couple things about this reference. First, we see that Smith has made the Father and the Son personages, but not the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, we also see that the Holy Spirit is included by Smith in the godhead and calls them one. Finally, we see that in this little expression that Smith makes the Holy Spirit the MIND of both the Father and the Son.

Essentially what Smith was presenting was a form of binitarianism – where there are two instead of three persons in the godhead. I say a form because even though he calls the Holy Spirit the Mind of the Father and Son he does include it in the godhead. That being said, in Lectures on Faith 5:1 when Smith is asked point blank:

“How many personages are in the godhead?” his response was: “Two: the Father and the Son.”

Again, we probably can’t conclude Smith was a strict binitarian at this point because all he says is the Father and Sons are persons but does include the Holy Spirit in the One Godhead.

Interpretation by Professor Chuck Harrell

Now, as pointed out by professor Chuck Harrell in his book, “This is my doctrine,”

“The Lectures (on Faith) aren’t binitarian in the sense of the theological belief that “there are only two persons in the godhead instead of the three of the Trinity; this involving the denial of the deity of the Holy Spirit.”

Harrell says this is “because Smith’s binitarianism acknowledges that the THREE constitute the godhead” though admits only two are actually persons.

The Holy Spirit and the Understanding of the Godhead

My estimation and view of scripture I have no issue with Smith’s understanding of the Holy Spirit at this point in his thought processes as I too believe the Holy Spirit to be God, “of God,” even of the godhead but not a person as the Trinitarians demand. Of course, Trinitarians see the Holy Spirit as a person (or being) eternally distinct in His ontology from the Father and the Son – not necessarily as a human being, person, or form but as a being with a center of consciousness entirely separate from both Father and Son.

Now, many Trinitarians believe that my rejection of the Holy Spirit as a being of a separate consciousness is heretical but Charles Spurgeon, the great 19th-century Baptist pastor, in his book Sermons of C.H. Spurgeon of London, page 46, admits that in his day even traditional Trinitarians had: “acquired the habit of regarding the Holy Ghost as an emanation flowing from the Father and the Son but not as being actually a person himself.” Of course, Spurgeon adamantly disagreed with this “habit” but that does not mean he was right and those who acquired the habit were wrong any more than Luther was right and Galileo was wrong.

Smith's View of the Holy Spirit During the Nauvoo Period

By 1841, what we might call the Nauvoo Period, there was an increase in distinction in Smith’s mind in the make-up of the godhead. This included the Holy Spirit as having a center of consciousness (or being a personage). In 1841 February, Smith said: “The godhead was not . . . as many imagined – three heads but one body,” instead, he said, “the three were separate bodies.” This was the beginning of what is known as social Trinitarianism where the godhead are three distinct individuals of one purpose and not in substance.

Now, remember, Creedal Trinitarians say that if a person messes up the substance of the One God then they wind up with a form of Tritheism and if a person messes up in the persons they wind up as Modalists, but that only Trinitarians have both the person’s right (all God) and the substance right (all one). I find their definitional demands limiting and an attempt to make God their proprietary product which, once configured and accepted can be foisted upon others wanting to belong. In my estimation, the ONLY difference between the LDS description of God today and the Trinitarian view is the LDS claim the Father has a body of flesh and bone as tangible as Mans. Trinitarians say the Father is Spirit. Therein lies the difference between the two.

But again, in my estimation of scripture read as contextually as possible, (and with all due respect to both the LDS and the Trinitarians) I find both explanations bordering very very closely to polytheism, or the belief in many Gods. For me, the LDS are most guilty as they place the Father and the Son in literal bodies of flesh and bone making the two as tangible as Man (and since to the LDS they are both former men this only makes sense) but when the Trinitarians claim that Father, Son and Holy Spirit all have separate beings or centers of consciousness, body or not, I am left with the same dilemma.

One God, manifesting Himself (His Words) in flesh and manifesting Himself in Spirit for me encourages monotheism while admitting that Jesus was God with us and the Holy Spirit is God in us. On that thought let’s pause, open up the phone lines –

(801), and while the operators clear your calls, take a minute to consider this:

(SPOT HERE) Emails, calls and such

From: Lance

Subject: I am sorry

Message Body:

This message is for Shawn if he has time to read it.

Hey Shawn,

I know this sounds a bit dumb and even pointless, but I needed to write to apologize. I found your show back in 2007 through YouTube uploads and found myself very angry with your message. I was attending BYU at the time and was engaging in arguments on your YouTube video shows when I could. I bad-mouthed your appearance, your approach, and your message. You were the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing for me and I took great pride in the fact that I was defending my faith against people like you when I would engage others who were defending you on the clips on YouTube.

It took me until about 3 years ago when I finally had a stable job and was out of BYU to finally start looking at things a bit more objectively and in depth. In reality, I began…

Spiritual Journeys and Personal Reflections

I am a member of the LDS church but have been inactive most of my adult life, as I am now 39. My father’s side of the family is predominantly active, but my mother's side is mostly inactive. I was raised with this dichotomy. About two years ago, my father nearly died of a rare form of lymphoma, and when he was near deathSeparation from God—now overcome. Physical death remains, but it no longer separates us from life with God., he pleaded with me to give it another chance. I did exactly that and held nothing back. Initially, I felt renewed as I cleaned up many aspects of my life which I had neglected. I read both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, but really felt inspired by the plagiarized sections of Isaiah within the Book of Mormon. I was careful to never say I know the church is true because I never did know it was true and was basically using the opportunity to get closer to Jesus. After the initial spiritual shock of returning had worn off, I felt like I was starving for the word, for Jesus. However, for a short while, I felt reborn. Every breath felt new, my outlook was different, I did not see a beautiful woman and go straight to lust, tried to help people with all my might, and saw the blasphemy in our society everywhere.

Intense Spiritual Experiences and New Discoveries

After having two intense spiritual experiences following the death of my older brother from a prescription drug overdose and a painful back injury, I was presented with a fork in the road. My father had since had a miraculous recovery, and I was beginning to learn of the real truth behind Mormonism; the corporate-like control of the masses, complete ignorance of biblical truths, and man-made doctrine. I have always observed the leaders of the church as salesmen and extremely disconnected from the common man's reality. I do have the Melchizedek priesthood, but have not been through any endowments, as I felt an internal voice that prompted me to research the temple ceremonies. The results of which prevented me from going through with it.

Regularly, I have been praying for truth and understanding to find me regarding the nature of God and how I can find peace and rest through Christ. At about this time, I found you reaching out to Mormons and ex-Mormons. I feel the spiritual shackles and bindings that Mormonism causes. The feeling in my stomach when my father will not stop trying to convince me of the truthfulness of Mormonism, and his passive-aggressive and manipulative methods in trying to persuade me.

Gratitude and Acknowledgements

Now that you know a little about me, I would like to express my gratitude to you for your diligence in speaking to dig down into the teaching of the church to become an even more stalwart defender. I knew that if I had the time and energy to learn the truth, that I could prove you (and others like you) wrong. Unfortunately and fortunately, I haven’t been able to find the bottom of the rabbit hole and find myself in a theological tailspin. I am lucky that I have a good job to keep some stability in all of this. I am still a member on record, but I have stopped attending. The duplicitous actions and words in the church are a bit too much to handle right now. My marriage is still intact but is struggling because my wife is still very TBM.

I have you and a few others to thank for helping me to simply ask the right questions and begin thinking about things differently. I realized that I have never been a Christian in the true sense. I realize that I never really had a relationship with Christ. TBH, I still don’t. I don’t consider myself a Christian. It’s not that I don’t want to be but I don’t believe that just wanting to be a Christian makes me one. I still believe in God of some kind, but I am figuring out the rest right now.

I had to let you know that I appreciate your work. I am sorry for the hateful things I said about you. I hope you can forgive me for that, but I understand if I don’t deserve it. I’m not a regular watcher of your show because I frankly just don’t watch that much TV to begin with, but I hope you continue to touch others' hearts in the way you have touched mine.

Much love,

Lance

Personal Journeys and Spiritual Struggles

out against this empire. After praying with a sincere heart I found Heart of the Matter, or rather stumbled upon them in my rage against the deceit I felt. I have been watching your shows like crazy since then, I have a hard time turning them off. As you often state, I do not trust many people in the matters of spirituality now, but I feel like I have known you for a long time, kindred spirits you might say. I would really like to be around people like you, and help build others faith in Jesus like you have built mine. Unfortunately I live in northern California so I can not attend any of your events unless I get on a plane.

I think you should include this topic in one of your shows (see link below). This article enraged me when I saw it. I am so sick and tired of the spin. I saw this on disgrace book, I should really cancel my account, because recently all the mormons came out of the woodworks on facebook. Leadership must be telling members to use facebook to spread their disinformation. Thanks for reading this, and I hope to call the show sometime, but would rather have a dialog with you. I am looking for a christian, bible based fellowship to meet like minded folks. God bless you for caring about us!

From: Stephanie Denison

Pain of Losing Family

Hey Sean,

I have been to your church, we love it, but my health makes it hard for us to go. I watch you on the net. I would love to be more involved.

We left the LDS church about 4 yrs ago, and have lost plenty of friends and the family that still talks to us are very different. This has been very painful for me, I have had a mother that is very into herself, and I had taken her role and picked up the ball where she dropped it. Now she is doing her best to turn them against me. I can't even be around her. Do you do counseling for folks? Or can you give me some words of wisdom?

Thanks so much for getting the truth out there

Stephanie Denison

From: Logan Staples

Searching for Truth

Hello my name is Logan. I don't know how to make a professional email so I’m sorry for that. Anyway I’ve been watching the show on YouTube a lot and I've been studying the bible religion and history of my own freewill for about 6 years now and I’ve known about the beliefs of Mormonism since I first heard about it. I search for truth everyday by researching, I know that Christ is the truth and savior but I believe in more than that. In that people that want to make a difference have to learn more than the rest to defend their faith. I always try to keep an open mind but make solid beliefs so that I'm not in a relativistic world view. But one of the problems I face in being an open minded researcher is I can't seem to change anyone. I'm really good at debates and I can argue almost anything. But people say to me to just let others be cause If you try to change them it's not gonna work out. I'm actually in the parking lot of a Mormon church right now as I type this. I was invited by some missionaries and I went just to see. This was my second time and they did this testimony deal where they testified that the Book of Mormon is true. I got a frightened and anger feeling of “how they can say such a thing.” They claim that they know but I’ve been telling the missionaries that it's that fact that I don’t know that drives me to seek the truth. Then they explain but paradox themselves by saying well you can know by the Holy Spirit. I'm thinking i don’t think so because how can you tell if it's the spirit or the selfishness of the heart. I'm going off on diff subjects but my question is should I just walk away? I want to change or at least put a rock In their shoe but challenging someone's faith is to challenge who they are and that's why religion is a hot topic for all and why many will refuse to change. I don't wanna believe that's as true as they say. I wanna be able to bring people to Christ and let them know the truth.

Thank you

From: Kristan Payne

Subject: Love Your Work

Message Body:

As

Examining Mormonism and Early Believers

As a non-Mormon, I stumbled across some videos about Mormonism on YouTube a few months ago when I was studying Judaism. I quickly realized my impressions of the LDS were naive and wrong. As I learned the sordid truth about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, I assumed that the early believers didn't have access to information about Smith's criminal history. As I researched, I quickly found unbiased sources published in the 1830's and 1840's documenting the deception. I am making it my mission to educate those of us who viewed the LDS as a valid Christian sect similar to the Amish. My boys are growing and heading off to college where the oldest has already encountered Mormon missionaries. These unsuspecting college kids need to be prepared. As I work on "mindless" tasks, I listen to various podcasts or videos. I want to thank you for your work. I also want to commend you for speaking up. It takes a great deal of courage. I an inspired by you, Sandra Tanner, and the late Jerald Tanner. Your show has explained much and I appreciate the depth of the research. No belief that cannot withstand examination is worth having.

The Book of Abraham Controversy

From: dan

Subject: Shawn's Response To LDS's Book of Abraham Semitic Appropriation of Egyptian Texts

Message Body:

Here it is claimed that there is a way to resolve the obvious difficulties with Smith’s claims of having “translated” the Book of Abraham from Papyrii. Have you worked on any responses to this?

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham2.shtml

Sundar Singh's Conversion Journey

Brother Derrick Evanson forwarded this link at tentmakers.org

Sundar Singh was lauded by 20th century evangelical Christians for converting to Christianity around the turn of the century. Even in the 1970s Sundar was highly thought of by evangelical Christians. At that time I heard a Christian radio dramatization of the story of Sundar's miraculous conversion and his dangerous preaching journeys to India and Tibet, and I bought two books that told his story at evangelical Christian bookstores. The evangelical Christian apologist, Josh McDowell of Josh McDowell ministries, cited Sundar's conversion in the first and second editions of McDowell's book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict. While reading the evangelical versions of Sundar's life and teachings, I never once ran across Sundar's universalistic statements, not until I read Sundar's own works, along with some of the in-depth biographies that had been written about him nearer his own day. Sundar was raised a member of the Sikh religion. (Sikhism is a sect within Hinduism that was founded about 1500 A.D. that teaches belief in one God and rejects the caste system and idolatry.) Prior to his conversion, Sundar attended a primary school run by the American Presbyterian Mission where the New Testament was read daily as a "textbook." Sundar "refused to read the Bible at the daily lessons…To some extent the teaching of the Gospel on the love of God attracted me, but I still thought it was false." Though according to another testimony, Sundar confessed, "Even then, I felt the Divine attractiveness and wonderful power of the Bible."

In the midst of such confusion and while only fourteen years old, his mother died, and Sundar underwent a crisis of faith. His mother was a loving saintly woman and they were very close. In his anger, Sundar burned a copy of one of the Gospels in public. "Although I believed that I had done a very good deed by burning the Bible, I felt unhappy," he said. Within three days Sundar Singh could bear his misery no longer. Late one night in December 1903, he rose from bed and prayed that God reveal himself to him if he really existed. Otherwise — "I planned to throw myself in front of the train which passed by our house." For seven hours Sundar Singh prayed. "O God, if there is a God, reveal thyself to me tonight." The next train was due at five o'clock in the morning. The hours passed. Suddenly the room filled with a glow. A man appeared before him. Sundar Singh heard a voice say, "How long will you deny me? I died for you; I have given my life for you." He saw the man's hands, pierced by nails. Jesus was the last person Sundar was looking for. After all, Jesus was the 'foreign god' of the Christian teachers at his school… Amazed that his vision had taken the unexpected form of Jesus, Sundar was convinced in his heart that Jesus was the true Savior, and that He was alive. Sundar fell on his knees before Him and experienced an astonishing peacefulness which he had never

Sundar Singh's Journey of Faith

The vision disappeared, but peace and joy lingered within him. To meet Christ was only the beginning for Sundar Singh. He was a Sikh. Sikhs had endured terrible persecutions in their early history. As a consequence, they were fiercely loyal to their faith and to each other. Conversion to Christianity was considered treachery. Now every effort was made to woo or coerce Sundar Singh back to his ancestral faith.

Despite his family's pleas, bribes, and threats, Sundar wanted to be baptized in the Christian faith. After his father spoke words of official rejection over him, Sundar became an outcast from his people. He cut off the hair he had worn long like every Sikh man. Against great opposition, he was baptized on his birthday in 1905, in an English church in Simla. Conventional Indian churches were willing to grant him a pulpit, but their rules were foreign to his spirit. Indeed, he felt that a key reason the gospel was not accepted in India was because it came in a garb foreign to Indians. He decided to become a sadhu, so that he could dedicate himself to the Lord Jesus. He was convinced that this was the best way to introduce the Gospel to his people since it was the only way which his people were accustomed to. As a sadhu, he wore a yellow robe, lived on the charity of others, abandoned all possession, and maintained celibacy. In this lifestyle, he was free to devote himself to the Lord. Dressed in his thin yellow robe, Sundar Singh took to the road and began a life of spreading the simple message of love and peace and rebirth through Jesus. He carried no money or other possessions, only a New Testament.

Sundar Singh's Missionary Journeys

"I am not worthy to follow in the steps of my Lord," he said, "but like Him, I want no home, no possessions. Like Him, I will belong to the road, sharing the suffering of my people, eating with those who will give me shelter, and telling all people of the love of God." Sundar journeyed much. He traveled all over India and Ceylon. Between 1918-1919, he visited Malaysia, Japan, and China. Between 1920-1922 he went to Western Europe, Australia, and Israel. He preached in many cities; Jerusalem, Lima, Berlin, and Amsterdam among others. Despite his growing fame, Sundar retained a modest nature, desiring only to follow Jesus' example: to repay evil with kindness and to win over his enemies by love. This attitude often caused his enemies to feel ashamed of themselves, and caused even his father to become a Christian later in life, and to support Sundar in ministry.

He was quite independent of outward Church authority in all his religious life, thought, and work. He dropped out of a Christian seminary that he briefly attended. Neither did he attach much importance to public worship because in his experience the heart prays better in solitude than in a congregation.

Criticism of Western Christianity

He was also highly displeased with what he found when he toured western nations that for centuries had the benefit of the Bible and whose central figure of worship was Jesus. Sundar proclaimed almost prophetic denunciations upon Western Christianity, and laughed at the way the West looked down upon religious men of the East as mere "pagans" and "heathens." "People call us heathens," he said in a conversation with the Archbishop of Upsala. "Just fancy! My mother a heathen! If she were alive now she would certainly be a Christian. But even while she followed her ancestral faith she was so religious that the term 'heathen' makes me smile. She prayed to God, she served God, she loved God, far more warmly and deeply than many Christians."

On another occasion, Sundar said, "I have seen many Christian women, but none of them came up to my mother." And, conversing with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Sundar said: "If I do not see my mother in heaven, I shall ask God to send me to hell so that I may be with her." Sundar also made plain his view that, "There are many more people among us in India who lead a spiritual life than in the West, although they do not know or confess Christ. It is of course true that people who live in India worship idols; but here in England people worship themselves, and that is still worse. Idol-worshippers seek the truth, but people over here, so far as I can see, seek pleasure and comfort. The people of the

Sundar Singh's Teachings and Beliefs

West understand how to use electricity and how to fly in the air. The men of the East have sought the truth. Of the three Wise Men who went to Palestine to see Jesus not one was from the West.'" He travelled India and Tibet, as well as the rest of the world, with the message that the modern interpretation of Jesus was sadly watered down. Sundar visited Tibet every summer. In 1929, he visited that country again and was never seen again.

Sundar's Faith for All Mankind

Few Christians know that Sundar was not afraid to raise his voice in favor of "universalism." He could never deny to all non-Christians the possibility of entering heaven. In 1925 Sundar wrote, "If the Divine spark in the soul cannot be destroyed, then we need despair of no sinner… Since God created men to have fellowship with Himself, they cannot for ever be separated from Him… After long wandering, and by devious paths, sinful man will at last return to Him in whose Image he was created; for this is his final destiny."

In February, 1929, the year Sundar disappeared on his final missionary trip to Tibet, he was interviewed by several theology students in Calcutta, India, where he answered their questions:

1. What did the Sadhu think should be our attitude towards non-Christian religions? — The old habit of calling them 'heathen' should go. The worst 'heathen' were among us [Christians]…

2. Who were right, Christian Fundamentalists or Christian Liberals? — Both were wrong. The Fundamentalists were uncharitable to those who differed from them. That is, they were unchristian. The Liberals sometimes went to the extent of denying the divinity of Christ, which they had no business to do.

3. Did the Sadhu think there was eternal punishment? — There was punishment, but it was not eternal…Everyone after this life would be given a fair chance of making good, and attaining to the measure of fullness the soul was capable of. This might sometimes take ages."

This article was primarily written by Edward T. Babinski, with further editing and additions by Mercy Aiken.

Additional Quotes by Sadhu Sundar Singh

"He was searching for me before I sought Him. Christ whom I had never expected came to me. I was praying, 'If there be a God, reveal Thyself'…I was praying to Hindu gods and incarnations. But when He came there was no anger in His face, even though I had burnt the Bible three days before. None of you have ever destroyed Scripture like me. He is such a wonderful, loving, living Saviour…"

"There is a great difference between knowing about Jesus and knowing Him… If we only know of Jesus as a good man, a great example, it is no help to us. Those who know Him know Who He is. When we know Him everything is different and we are living in a new world — a new atmosphere. Heaven begins on earth for us. Those who know Him know that Jesus is everything to them. They can bear witness because they have been living with Him…If we live in Him He will reveal Himself to us and we shall bear witness — not for a day or a night only…"

"For the first two or three years after my conversion, I used to ask for specific things. Now I ask for God. Supposing there is a tree full of fruits — you will have to go and buy or beg the fruits from the owner of the tree. Every day you would have to go for one or two fruits. But if you can make the tree your own property, then all the fruits will be your own. In the same way, if God is your own, then all things in Heaven and on earth will be your own, because He is your Father and is everything to you; otherwise you will have to go and ask like a beggar for certain things. When they are used up, you will have to ask again. So ask not for gifts but for the Giver of Gifts: not for life but for the Giver of Life — then life and the things needed for life will be added unto you."

"Salt, when dissolved in water, may disappear, but it does not cease to exist. We can be sure of its presence by tasting the water. Likewise, the indwelling Christ, though unseen, will be made evident to others from the love which he imparts."

The Cross and Human Hearts

"From my many years experience I can unhesitatingly say that the cross bears those who bear the cross." "While sitting on the bank of a river one day, I picked up a solid round stone from the water and broke it open. It was perfectly dry in spite of the fact that it had been immersed in water for centuries. The same is true of many people in the Western world. For centuries they have been surrounded by Christianity; they live immersed in the waters of its benefits. And yet it has not penetrated their hearts; they do not love it. The fault is not in Christianity, but in men's hearts, which have been hardened by materialism and intellectualism."

Humility and Honor

"When Jesus entered Jerusalem the people spread their clothes in the way and strewed branches before Him in order to do Him honour. Jesus rode upon an ass, according to the word of the prophet. His feet did not touch the road which was decorated in His honour. It was the ass which trod upon the garments and the branches. But the ass would have been very foolish to have been uplifted on that account; for the road really was not decked in its honour! It would be just as foolish if those who bear Christ to men were to think anything of themselves because of what men do to them for the sake of Jesus."

Spiritual Growth Through Suffering

"A newborn child has to cry, for only in this way will his lungs expand. A doctor once told me of a child who could not breathe when it was born. In order to make it breathe the doctor gave it a slight blow. The mother must have thought the doctor cruel. But he was really doing the kindest thing possible. As with newborn children the lungs are contracted, so are our spiritual lungs. But through suffering God strikes us in love. Then our lungs expand and we can breathe and pray."

"A newborn child has to cry, for only in this way will his lungs expand. A doctor once told me of a child who could not breathe when it was born. In order to make it breathe the doctor gave it a slight blow. The mother must have thought the doctor cruel. But he was really doing the kindest thing possible. As with newborn children the lungs are contracted, so are our spiritual lungs. But through suffering God strikes us in love. Then our lungs expand and we can breathe and pray." "Just as the salt water of the sea is drawn upwards by the hot rays of the sun, and gradually takes on the form of clouds, and, turned thus into sweet and refreshing water, falls in showers on the earth (for the sea water as it rises upwards leaves behind it its salt and bitterness), so when the thoughts and desires of the man of prayer rise aloft like misty emanations of the soul, the rays of the Sun of Righteousness purify them of all sinful taint, and his prayers become a great cloud which descends from heaven in a shower of blessing, bringing refreshment to many on the earth."