Worship and Authority

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..

Show 42 468
October 20th 2015

Incident in New York

How about some news from The World of Life Church out of upstate New York? Got this from Wendy J. The article says: A 19-year-old man died and his brother is in a hospital after being beaten by their parents and members of an upstate New York church in an effort to get the teens to confess their sins, police said. Lucas Leonard was pronounced dead Monday after being taken to a hospital in New Hartford, and his 17-year-old brother Christopher was in serious condition Wednesday, police said. "Both brothers were continually subjected to physical punishment over the course of several hours, in the hopes that each would confess the prior sins and ask for forgiveness," New Hartford Police Chief Michael Inserra told reporters Wednesday. Four other members of the "Word of Life Church" were also charged in the assault. Church members Joseph Irwin, 26, David Morey, also 26, Linda Morey, 54, and Sarah Ferguson, 33, who is the sister of the teen victims, were charged with second-degree assault. Inserra said the church held a "counseling session" on Sunday night and "the session turned physical." Leonard was taken to the hospital Monday morning after church members noticed he wasn't breathing, Inserra said. Both brothers suffered blunt force trauma, police said.

Of course this story is aberrational in the lengths this group went to discipline the sinMissing the mark of faith and love—no punishment, just lost growth or peace. out of these poor boys but I would suggest that the spirit of what they did is quite normative. In almost every case the afflicted – whether they are beaten with blows or chiding or a stern thrashing of words or ostracization – submission to those who are feel they have “authoritai” over them is demanded. It’s all the same spirit to some degree or another – one person being told to submit by another (or others) who believe they have the right to discipline. Imagine if those boys refused to comply. Oh wait, they did! What a sad, sad, sad story. But not unheard of in religion when human beings actually believe they have the right to speak and act for God toward others.

Cultural Obedience

Speaking of men speaking on behalf of God I guess last week I said something about the LDS having a culture that says “when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done.” Of course my tone would have been critical of such a culture but in any case I received an email regarding that comment. I’m sharing it with you to show the mindset of some of those who defend their petty religions – in the case Mormonism. The writer says:

“Shawn, I think the only Mormon who believes that “when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done” is you. The emailer then says that there are “several instances in our scriptures or history where we are encouraged to ponder on all that we receive, and that we have our free agency.” And then he concludes with:

“There are enough talks and articles on this topic that should help people to know that this label you are trying to pin on us is far off the mark.”

To his remark that I am the only one who believes that “when the prophet speaks the thinking has been done,” I replied:

“And Boyd k. And Ezra taft. And I guess me.”

To which he wrote:

“Boyd K. Packer did not believe that, in the literal sense that you are trying to put forth. Nor did Ezra Taft. I challenge you to prove me wrong.”

Now, my days of pissing contests are over. There is way too much truth to share to spend time satisfying ridiculous challenges from people who make it their life making them. I know the LDS culture, and I know what Packer and Taft have intimated in the past. No matter what other comments have been made about challenging leadership this writer is absolutely off base in terms of the general LDS culture of obedience to the brethren. But I was not going to spend time trying to prove it. So I replied to his challenge.

“No time. No desire. No need. I know the facts.”

Conclusion

What does he say back?

“In other words, you can't; we both know it. Therefore, any continuance of this constitutes a lie, and you will be judged for it.”

You know, if I have learned anything over these past few years it’s to withhold

The Perception of Judgment Among Followers

Judgement when possible. I’m not perfect at it but there is so much judgement on the part of people who claim Jesus toward others who claim the same! I was in a place the other morning and I had a ravening dispensationalist who attends a pretty straightforward Christian church tell me straight out that “I am going to hell for teaching that Jesus has already returned!” Going to hell! I explained it was not an issue to divide over and he actually told me that we worship a different Jesus! And repeated that I was going to hell! Back to the email this writer says my continuance of saying that Boyd Packer and Ezra Benson taught that when the brethren have spoken the thinking has been done is a lie and I will be judged for it. The drama continued but I thought I'd give you some quotes from LDS leaders on the topic.

The Influence of Doctrine in Decision Making

When it comes to LDS doctrine the LDS cannot think for themselves.

“There is but one man upon the earth, at one time, who holds the keys to receive revelations for the Church, and who has the authority to write doctrines by way of commandment unto the Church.” – Prophet Brigham Young, Messages of the First Presidency, v. 2, p. 239

LDS people are not supposed to do their own thinking.

"Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the prophets, seers, revelators of the church, is cultivating the spirit of apostasy. One cannot speak evil of the lord's anointed… and retain the holy spirit in his heart. This sort of game is Satan's favorite pastime, and he has practiced it to believing souls since Adam. He {Satan} wins a great victory when he can get members of the church to speak against their leaders and to do their own thinking." – Ward Teachers Message, Deseret News, Church Section, p.5, May 26, 1945

The Consequence of Independent Thought

In one of the first admittances of the thinking being done once the leaders speak, we read this back in 1945:

“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan- it is God's Plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy, God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of GodGod’s spiritual reign—fulfilled and present, not political or future.." – Ward Teachers Message, Deseret News, Church Section p. 5, May 26, 1945

Authority and Obedience in LDS Teachings

Marion G Romney quoted LDS Prophet Heber J Grant in saying in a 1972 Ensign article to young men in the LDS priesthood: “My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he tells you to do something wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.” – Prophet Heber J. Grant, as quoted by Apostle Marion G. Romney in “The Covenant of the Priesthood,” Ensign, July 1972, p. 98

The year I graduated from high School N. Eldon Tanner, a member of the LDS First Presidency said this: “When the Prophet speaks the debate is over.” – Apostle N. Eldon Tanner, Ensign, Aug. 1979, pp. 2-3.

LDS Apostle James E Faust said: “Those men and women who persist in publicly challenging basic doctrines, practices, and establishment of the Church sever themselves from the Spirit of the Lord and forfeit their right to place and influence in the Church…. There is a certain arrogance in thinking that any of us may be more spiritually intelligent, more learned, or more righteous than the Councils called to preside over us.” – Apostle James E. Faust, “Keeping Covenants and Honoring the Priesthood,”

Boyd Packer, speaking of those who research and report on historical truths counter to the official LDS stance said: “One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for "advanced history," is himself in spiritual jeopardy. If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be accountable. After all of the tomorrows of mortality have been finished, he will not stand where he might have stood.”

Ezra Taft Benson said in his fourteen points of following the Prophet:

Number 2

The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works

Number 3

The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

Fourth

The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Subjective Christianity

prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual. Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer. Now, you tell me – in light of all of this – is there a culture alive and well in the LDS church that clearly supports the notion that when the prophet or the brethren or whomever have spoken then the thinking has been done and the debate is over.

Listen, we have the following posted on our CAMPUS website and I thought I’d take a second to read what we mean by Subjective ChristianityA direct, personal relationship with God—free from institutional authority, guided by personal relationship, faith and agape love.. This essentially summarizes the approach

(GRAPHIC)

The Subjectivist Manifesto

As believers in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, standing firmly on a foundation of Apostles and Prophets and led of the Holy Spirit of God, we openly and independently choose to support the principles of Subjective Christianity which are partially summarized in the following:

We seek to help put an end to doctrinal and denominational division, alienation over praxis or theology, and the poor treatment of any persons who, politely or rudely, differ with our personal beliefs regarding biblical interpretation or other elements of the Christian faith. We seek to patiently accept all people in love (with love defined by 1st Corinthians 13.) All people, all the time. We will not judge the salvation or eternal standing of any person who professes faith in Christ with the understanding that we all see through a glass darkly and are all maturing in the faith at different rates relative to our understanding, interpretation, and application of the Word of God.

We openly recognize that God and His ways are utterly objective but when they are presented to fallen Man His objective truths are subjectively interpreted and understood. We therefore maintain that genuine Christianity exists between the heart of the individual and God Himself and is manifested in love to others. We therefore do not believe any individual or institution has the right to make doctrinal demands of any person but instead trust that God will, by and through His Spirit, make disciples unto Himself. We therefore submit ourselves to trusting in God through Christ by the Holy Spirit – believing that He, in the end, will bring all believers to a unity of the faith. We claim that it is the Christian duty to first preach Jesus, to teach the Word without strife (and to the best of our ability), to walk with relentless faith in God, and to love Him and our fellow Man unconditionally. September 1st 2015

Moment from the Word

We challenge more pastors from more churches to consider the tenets of Subjective Christianity as they reach and teach and serve the King. And with that, how about a Moment from the Word

Tonight we are in Hebrews and are reading passages that support the Subjective view of the Faith. This is a big one because most pastors approach believers with the Bible and say,

“Conform”

But the writer of Hebrews suggest another mode of control, saying:

Hebrews 8:8-13 “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the

Covenant and High Priesthood

…least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”

Hebrews 9:11
“But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building.”

Hebrews 9:13-14
“For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”

Hebrews 10:16
“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them.”

Old Covenant Versus New Covenant

Hebrews 12:18-29
“For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest, And the sound of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart: And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake:) But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: For our God is a consuming fire.”

Hebrews 13:9
“Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.”

Joseph Smith's Views

And with that, how about a word of Prayer, given tonight by _____________________

PRAYER PRAYER PRAYER PRAYER PRAYER PRAYER PRAYER PRAYER

Okay, we’ve been talking about the differing views on the make-up or ontology of God proposed by people who claim Jesus as Lord during Joseph Smith’s day – with those views including “Creedal Trinitarianism,” “Modalism” (of the Sabellian type and of the non-Sabellian type) and the Unitarian views.

We then started talking about how the founder of Mormonism included various elements of these views in his early writings and in his Book of Mormon. Last week we pointed out that where Joseph Smith once said that the personages in the godhead were two – Father and Son that by February of 1841 – eleven years after publishing the BOM, and a time when he and his followers had relocated to Nauvoo Illinois – Smith said the Godhead was “three separate bodies,” which is a form of what is called, “social trinitarianism” which says that the members of the godhead are one in purpose but separate in substance.

Now, listen closely to how Smith articulated how the different roles of the three persons of the godhead were established. Smith said:

“An everlasting covenant was made between the three personages before the organization of the earth and relates to their dispensation of things to men on earth. These personages according to Abraham’s record are called God, the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer;

Joseph Smith's Religious Evolution

and God the third, the witness or Testator.” (Ehat and Cook, the Words of Joseph Smith, pg. 87-88)

Sound wild? It is. I mean, where on earth would Smith come up with such things about the members of the godhead making a covenant with each other and where would he get the audacity to so authoritatively say them as if they were gospel fact? Perhaps Smith, the great religious synthesizer, took the notion from the Protestants – especially the Calvinists. That’s right. The idea that members of the Godhead made a covenant with each other was taught in Reformed Theology (also known as Covenant Theology) in the 19th Century. In fact, an 1823 Calvinist Creed says this:

“God from eternity made a gracious covenant or plan . . . for the salvation of man. The parties to this covenant are . . . the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost.”

The creed continues saying,

“distinctive operations are ascribed to each Person: creation and election to the Father, redemption to the Son, sanctifying and sealing to the Holy Ghost.”

(from “Confessions of Faith of the Calvinistic Methodists or the Presbyterians of Wales”)

Smith's Departure from Trinitarian Doctrine

Because Smith, as we noted, would later recite something almost verbatim, even to the point of making the Father the creator instead of the Son, it seems that elements of Protestantism played a strong role in his burgeoning ideas. In other words Smith being Smith he stood on the Protestant teaching of Trinity and instead of remaining there launched the whole concept out further from what was established. In March of 1839 and in the Doctrine and Covenants Smith intimated an early idea of their being more than one God but it wasn’t until 1842 that he specifically referred to the godhead as consisting of three separate beings who were also “three God’s.” In other words by 1842 Smith seems content to think that the three persons of the Trinity merely agreed as one but were NOT one corporally.

The last time he spoke in public before his deathSeparation from God—now overcome. Physical death remains, but it no longer separates us from life with God. he repudiated the doctrine of the trinity. It was June 16th 1844 where he said:

“Men say there is one God – Father, Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God – it is a strange God anyhow three in one and one in three.”

It was here that he added that the godhead was made of three personages and three God’s. From all this we can see that Smith went from endorsing the elements of a Trinitarian God in his book of Mormon, and also a Sabellianist Modalist God as well, to a godhead consisting of only two persons (Father and Son) and one non-person (the Holy Spirit – which served as the mind of Father and Son) to the godhead becoming three persons and finally to being three Gods.

The Error of Moving Away from the One God

In my estimation the fault for Smith leading people away from the One God lies in the hands of the Creedal Trinitarians who made God so confusing, so nonsensical, and so unknowable that Smith, trying to restore true Christianity back to earth allowed himself to move away from the Trinitarian stance . . . but in the wrong direction.

Imagine that at the time Smith was alive that the popular view – Trinitarianism – is right here in front of me. Smith could go to the left or to the right to distance himself from it. To the left was his ultimate teaching of three persons and three gods OR he could have gone right and taught ONE God and ONE GOD only whose Words became flesh and dwelled among us and who sent His actual Spirit to fill those who believed on the Son later.

ONE GOD – maintaining the sound creed of all Jews, Muslims and Christians – manifesting Himself in flesh called Jesus and in Spirit once Jesus ascended. The idea of who the One God is and the fact that He sent His Word to Save us, (becoming His Son when He took on flesh) is evidenced in the way God is introduced through the New Testament epistle introductions. In Romans 1:8 Paul writes, “First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all . . .”

1st Corinthians 1:3 says: “Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”

2nd Corinthians 1:2 says, “Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Already we clearly see that the Father is always called “God,” “my God,” and “God our Father” with Jesus clearly addressed each

Exploring the Nature of God

Peter was clear when he said in 1st Peter 3:18:

“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.”

This was the sole purpose of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God with us, to bring us to God. And in the end, because of His efforts as the Word of God condescending below all things and taking on flesh and sin, the single only God will be all in all.

Colossians 1:3 introduces God this way, saying: “We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you.”

Paul says something interesting in 1st Timothy 1:1. He says:

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Savior, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope.”

He reiterates this introduction in II Timothy, saying:

2nd Timothy 1:1 “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus.”

The Concept of Non-Sabellianist Modalism

Non-Sabellianist Modalism, while made a dirty word by the Trinitarians for nearly two thousand years, presents seekers of truth with the clearest, God honoring representation of the One God, His Word made flesh and His Holy Spirit both used to redeem and sanctify Man.

For some reason Smith chose not to move to the right of the Trinitarian mess and back to the Modalist view but to the left of it, and instead of choosing to recognize and honor One True and Living God he chose to recognize and honor three . . . and then more.

It is at this point where Smith really stepped beyond the parameters of biblical presentation and allowed for a multiplicity of Gods. According to Professor Harrell, Smith developed his thoughts on a plurality of God’s when he was studying with a Professor of Hebrew name Joshua Seixus in 1835 and 1836.

It was here that Smith learned that the Hebrew term Elohim was actually plural of El. He then wrote in his book of Abraham that “God’s created the heavens and the earth.” In March of 1839 he spoke of a “council of the Eternal God of all other gods” which got together “before this world was.”

Smith's Shift in Doctrine

Harrell point out that it wasn’t clear whether Smith initially saw these “other gods” as god’s in the full sense or in a lesser sense than the Eternal God. Many believe that when the Book of Abraham speaks of “the God’s” who “organized and formed the heavens and the earth” that this was speaking of noble Spirits pre-existing rather than resurrected beings who had attained godhood.

It is thought that these were people, who, as Smith said:

“exalted themselves to be gods even from before the foundation of the world and are the only Gods I have reverence for.”

From the Christian perspective we have to admit that Smith was now beginning to tread in some serious waters. Where Psalm 33:6, supporting the modalist tradition says:

“By the word of the LORD” (that’s Yahway, by the way, the personal name of the single God) “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth,”

Smith was now taking the Genesis account of creation and bringing in many gods – the stature of their presumed godhead unknown or stated at this point – but this was a step in his thinking that moved Him to ultimately decide that there were God’s SUPERIOR to the One He used to recognize as supreme.

According to Ehat and Cook, Smith began, in the late Nauvoo period, to teach of “intelligences existing one above another so that there is no end to it.” There is an implication in this thought that there are intelligences that were even higher than that of the Father.

Harrell writes: ‘Indeed, by June of 1844 it was reported that Joseph was teaching that there are “innumerable Gods as much above God that presides over this universe, as He is above us.”’ Adding fuel to this fire Smith said:

“God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father,” and we “may suppose that he had a father also – where was there ever a Son without a Father.”

And from these things the distinct LDS teaching of an endless eternal regression of Gods was born.

In a book never authorized or canonized by the LDS Church called the Seer, a faithful LDS member Orson Pratt, one of the twelve original apostles of the

Multiplicity of Gods

LDS church and therefore close to Smith, wrote in his book the Seer:

“The person of our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; and again, He was begotten by a still more ancient Father; and so on, from generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another still more ancient, until our minds are wearied and lost in the multiplicity of generations and successive worlds.”

From these hypothecations and conjectures the LDS today are, truly, bound by the teachings that, if they live worthily, they too might join in this line of a multiplicity of Gods, creating and populating their own worlds, and becoming God’s themselves.

Many Gods and One God

Now, are there many gods? Of course there are. Paul says in 1st Corinthians 8:5

“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

The Word for gods here (lower case G) is theos – the same word for God with an upper case. Heathens everywhere worshipped multitudes of things and beings they gave the title of god or gods (with a lower case g). To them they were gods. Paul adds:

“Whether in heaven,” which could refer to the sun, moon or stars, or to the gods of the Greeks or Romans like Zeus or Juno or Mercury, “or on earth,” he says, which could refer to Neptune, or Pluto, or in our day, men who others consider “gods” of industry, music or whatever.

The Consistency of One God

But when Paul admits that there be gods many, this isn’t an admission that they were truly gods or that they deserved worship. The Bible is utterly and entirely clear there is ONE God who is deserving of our total sold out allegiance.

In the same vein, when Paul admits that there are “lords many,” he is admitting the same thing. Lords is a common term applied to men who oversee and rule certain earthly empires or households. But while there are god’s many and lords many, Paul continues in the next verse and says:

“But to us” (those who have been saved – that is the context) “there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”

We note a few things here – Paul says that to those of us who have been saved, there is (LISTEN) but ONE GOD, THE FATHER AND ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

One God One LORD.

Nothing about the Holy Spirit as a being or person. Nothing about three in one.

One God. One Lord.

Let’s open up the phone lines:

(801)

While the ops are clearing your calls let’s consider the following:

Church Unity

From: Cole

Subject: Church unity

Message Body:

I've wrote before so I'm praying this gets read. I’ll try to keep it short. I’m 21 and help with our youth ministry at church, we have a lot of kids that come on a weekly night (numbers Don't matter). Tonight was different, we had what’s called fields of faith at a high school. Tonight, these denominations I know were there, methodist, baptist, and even non denominational. I know non denom isn’t considered one but The fact that three sects of churches can come together and worship was crazy! Three speakers spoke and songs where sang. If this gets read on air let me just tell the audience right now you can be any denom you want to but the very fact that different minds and bodies can come together and be one mind and one body is inspirational. Think about what you would do, if you were in the same room as a Catholic, a Methodist, a baptist, even Pentecostal. Would you even want to worship with them? If not, you are not wanting unity as Gods body, but you are wanting division. Straight up. This is Church. Love you guys.

From: Jacen
Subject: Where is your Facebook presence?

“Just wondering where or how to contact you on Facebook?”

I REPLIED:

“You cant. I am personally repulsed by disgracebook and almost all it represents. I'm sorry.”

HE REPLIED BACK:

I'm convinced that you've avoided it because it would afford others an increased capacity to have you take ownership of the contempt you have for the LDS church and for the saints.

Cowardly behavior is consistent with infidels and so it is.

If you were legit, you'd be as public and transparent as possible – unfortunately you've arrogated yourself as being smarter than God and that always leads to an impasse that will eventually have to be reconciled. By the time you've determined that I'm LDS, however,

Discussions on Faith and Beliefs

you've already written me off as being able to do no right so I'll get off to church. Have a good Sunday & if you do venture into the world of faith via such conditions, feel free to let me know about it.

I REPLIED:

Holy cow! You caught me. Lord knows FACEBOOK is the best and only way to achieve transparency. Dang, Jacen. Can't get anything past you!

Viewer Thoughts and Queries

From: Logan Staples
Subject: Revealing the truth

Message Body:

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

Questions of Belief Systems and Their Examination

From: Kristan Payne
Subject: Love Your Work

Message Body:

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 am 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.

From: Andrew Liosatos
Subject: Jesus is Black

Message Body:

I have been watching your TV Show for a very long time now. I was wondering, since you have lots of knowledge regarding the scripture about Jesus being of oily skin; kind of Dark or black color. There is a scripture in Revelation 1:15: "And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters."

What would your personal view be, as a Christian, in regards to this scripture? It would be nice, if you could do a TV Program about this matter.

Hope, you will have the time to write me an

Message of Reconciliation

Luke 6:32-42

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.

And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that.

And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full.

But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

He also told them this parable: “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into a pit?

The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher.”

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Reflecting on True Kindness

2 Corinthians 5:20

We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.

2 Corinthians 5:21

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

e-mail with information about it.

Thank you Brother In Christ.

Andrew Liosatos