The Trinity Q&A

Challenges with Church Financial Support

Show 19B Follow-up on the Trinity – Live
April 28st 2020

I received a communication taken from a local church here which I won’t name (SouthMountain) and it’s the form they give to their people on how to access financial support in this time of need. I am going to use them as the example of what is probably going on all over the world with established brick and mortars. So, if you wanna hear church playing at its best, listen to the following explanation from South Mountain Community Church here in Salt Lake on how to be qualified for receiving financial help from the church:

Membership and Financial Aid

“Financial support is given first to those that are MEMBERS of the church.” Interestingly, South Mountain claims over and over again (in other places) that they don’t have “members or memberships” but this is the first qualification they give for getting support – that the applicant must be a member. So translated, what they are really saying here is they make people who want their love and support to join their church through the actions of what a member is expected to offer – like attending meetings and things, paying tithes, donation, volunteering and all the rest. For this reason, and later on this form, the person filling it out is required to disclose a number of things related to being a member – like how often they attend church and the rest.

Exhausting All Other Aid

But the qualifications have just begun. The second thing they say is: “After family and government aid, the SMALL GROUP that a person attends is the next source for help. If all those sources of financial aid prove to be wanting, then the benevolence fund “may” be considered. Man, this is CLASSIC manipulation – so much so that I am going to the board to detail it out. First, they say, you must be a member – and they will qualify you on this later. Then they say: AFTER FAMILY aid has been exhausted, and Government aid (has been exhausted) THE SMALL GROUP (that a person attends) is the next source for help!

So let’s create a qualification funnel here, ready? 1. You must be a member of South Mountain Church. (how this is determined is a mystery). 2. You must exhaust all family for money first. (apparently they check this). 3. You must then exhaust the government for money (which they also check). And then, South Mountain has what they call “small groups” this is typically where three or five or eight people get together regularly. So they’ve got people trapped here, because if they haven’t been part of a small group they, at this point, are SOL. But if you are in a small group South Mountain tells you to ask the people in that group to financially support you!

But it doesn’t end there. They then slyly add: “If all of those sources of financial aid prove to be wanting, then “the benevolence fund “may” be considered.” Did you catch it? “then the benevolence fund may be considered.” They have taken a percentage of their donations and placed it in what they call “a benevolence fund.” Maybe it's 60% of their donations or maybe it's 1%, but bottom-line what this means is that they have placed a cap on the funds available to their tithe paying people (remember, South Mountain Community Church preaches, teaches and pushes tithes all over the place). So where they could have ten million in the general account, if the benevolence fund is tapped out, then . . . sorry. See how they work the system of religion as a means to keep themselves fat and happy while the sheep are getting slaughtered?

Work and Relative Support

But we are not done: Then they flat out explain what will cause people to not receive aid, saying: “If you CAN WORK then you will probably not get aid from the church.” If we can find work for you at [the church], we will gladly pay you for that work. If not, we will partner with you in locating a job.” If you “can” work then you will probably not get aid for the church? Who decides who can work or not? Fascinating. Another caveat for not getting aid: “If you have RELATIVES that can help, then you probably will not receive aid.”

Financial Assistance and Church Policies

We understand that many relatives are not willing to help because they feel that they have been used in the past. This crisis may be an opportunity for reconciliation and we will assist with that in any way we can. In other words, you are a bum who has probably ripped your family off so we understand them not helping you. If they won't, we won't either! But we will help you try and mediate reconciliation with your offended family. These guys are unreal.

Next caveat they say which will lead to South Mountain not giving help: “If you are in a bad situation because of SELF-INFLICTED POVERTY (drug abuse, gambling, “other misconduct”) then you will most likely not receive aid from [the church]. And these frickers add to this: “We have classes for those who need financial guidance. We also have a weekly support and encouragement group for people that have hurts, habits and hang-ups that have contributed to their financial crisis.”

Financial Assistance Limitations

Finally, they pretty much close the door on all help and say: Financial assistance from [the church] is not guaranteed as, from time to time, that fund gets depleted. At the end of this form they have people fill out they request all sorts of information whereby they can be vetted. It's pretty much like an SBA loan application but more casual. And bottom line? This pile of brick and mortar that calls itself a church with its million dollar plus edifices and its tithes and demands for giving almost weekly, has essentially made it impossible for their own people in need to get any financial help.

Now, listen to what Jesus plainly said: Matthew 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Matthew, if a man asks for your coat give him your cloak also. South Mountain is rich and protects their riches and what did Jesus say to the rich man: If thou wilt be complete go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. And then what does the brother of the Lord write in James 2:16 to those who say to the poor “Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?”

Church and Individual Benevolence

If such benevolence prescribed by Jesus doesn’t begin at the church level how will it ever continue at the individual level. These times are the exact times the churches that have collected tithes should be paying them out – selling all they have if necessary, and expecting nothing in return. All I read are six or seven or eight selfish manipulative reasons why they refuse. BOYCOTT the brick and mortars! Gather without their leadership – you don’t need it (as proven by the past six weeks) “Arise, you have nothing to lose but your chains.”

BTW, there is a great article on how Covid 19 has shown the churches' true colors on Checkmychurch.org that just posted. Check it out.

As you are well aware in the human experience there are people who love to challenge other people to one on one debates. We typically see this in the arenas of politics and religion – which is very telling. I mean you don’t often see musicians calling each other up and challenging them to a debate, do you? Or painters, or construction workers? No, our master debaters are most often seen in the realm of politics and of course religion.

If you REALLY think about it, it's comical, pretty damn egotistical on the participants' parts, and for the most part useless in terms of changing many people's minds, but perhaps debating serves as a sort-of “social release valve” where opposing camps get to send in a representative to say everything they want to say but can’t – and therefore letting off steam. I think in the age of fulfillment debating should be set aside for open conversation, but what I think doesn’t really matter – debaters still debate.

And recently I received a copy of the following debate from Wendy who said people were trying to post it on our social media outlets. It's between two Utah locals – one LDS and the other a strident Calvinist who frequents the downtown Salt Lake City events of the LDS and . . . well, debates. Introducing in the left corner, Kwaku El, Latter-Day Saint Millennial debater and in the Right Corner, Aaron Shafavoloff, representing Jean Calvin.

Biblical Interpretation and Context

Aaron does NOT represent Christ nor Christianity – he appears to think he does, but that is the stance most debaters take: “I am right. You are wrong. I will correct you with God on my right hand and the Bible in my left.” Aaron is well-meaning, it seems, and has a zeal for God but unfortunately goes about trying to correct everyone and not letting God’s love and finished work take hold on the hearts of others. You will see the intensity in Aaron's eyes as he speaks. Something I feel really sorry for and I pray for peace in his life.

On the other hand, we have Kwaku. A good enough sort with a quick wit and keen millennial-like mind. We have sat with Kwaku on the set and I found his honesty refreshing for a Latter-Day Saint and enjoyed his approach. Of course, anyone who knows the Bible could never concur with Kwaku’s beliefs, but the fact remains, his beliefs are between Him and God and the man deserves love and respect. So we are going to work through this edited piece to get a taste of what was being said. I think the piece was edited up by Kwaku’s team and to be honest, Aaron winds up not only looking like a fool, he makes the faith look so bad, so out of context, and so non-biblical, though he cites the Bible as his source.

Contextual Misinterpretations

I’ll have you know that Paul speaking in Ephesians 1 speaks of God predestining the Jews to do and be what they would do and be, and not the whole world and everything in it – and herein lies the problem with fanatics who do not read the word in context. Now notice what Kwaku is just lofting up softballs here, and Aaron in his mind is hitting them out of the Calvinistic park, but the whole time Kwaku, while Aaron rants with the verve of a hairdresser on fire, just calmly smiles to himself knowing that Aaron is playing the fool.

Now, from here the lunacy of Aaron’s remarks keeps growing. So Ann Frank, God puppets her through all sorts of horrible things out of her control only to toss her into an eternal hell once her insufferable life ends? Aaron says, “It seems so, yes.” The trouble here, folks, is our brother and friend Aaron is taking it upon himself to read passages that do not speak to Him, but to another age, and he is assigning them without any sort of context to the world at large. He does not see Jesus as having the victory over the world, he does not see Jesus as having reconciled the world to God, he sees Satan and hell still reigning, and interprets God’s word as having complete literal application to us today. Hence the urgency and fervor in his eyes.

Theological Disagreements

I’ve known Aaron a long time – and what you see on his face is the fruit of years of biblical literalism and interpretation out of context. I feel so badly for him and frankly what Kwaku is able to do to him here. Now, I have to side with Aaron here in terms of rebirth and regeneration – but the use of the clip from the Third Reich is unfair here, really unfair – whoever put this clip together. Aaron is presenting biblical principles here, and Kwaku’s casual, “yes, the corrupt Ann Frank” is certainly disrespectful to the Gospel message, the death of Christ, and to Aaron. Ann Frank, Mother Teresa, me, Kwaku do not get a pass on our sin or hearts, which are corrupt, and this is something that Mormonism will casually dismiss and mock – to the detriment of their members. God through Christ has reconciled the world to himself, but that does not mean all have been themselves been reconciled. There is no way to the father but by Christ, and do I applaud Aaron for standing up to this biblical fact in the face of Kwaku’s mockery of our need for rebirth.

And here we see the failure of these two men every standing before an audience to represent truth. First of all, the video unfairly repeats the Ann Frank montage and the use of the Third Reich – this is pure propaganda and I’m a little bummed at Kwaku for going this.

The Debate Between Aaron and Kwaku

Anyone can sew together a propaganda piece and this, I think is below the man and his mind. Secondly, to me it seems like Aaron is there to present his truth, which I find faulty but it is what he believes, and Kwaku is there to win – and make Aaron look foolish – which he will look like to people who do not understand what he is trying to say. I reject predestination on the grounds for which Aaron foolishly uses it, but he is not alone in this and the fact that Kwaku can make him look foolish does nothing to make Mormonism right – that is the unfortunate thing about these debates – in doing it, Aaron has helped to re-entrench LDS people into their faith and Kwaku has been free to make all of Evangelicalism look unconscionable. So sad.

It’s at this point in the video that Kwaku’s manipulation of the content becomes really unfair. I don’t really want to show it but there is a point that is made here that needs to be addressed – which we will do in a minute.

Ideology Versus Actions

Okay, let’s get this right. The comparison to Hindu’s worshipping idols and Bundy is a bad one for a number of reasons – we are talking about ideology versus actions – and Kwaku hooks Aaron into something that Aaron as a zeal-driven biblicist would chomp down on hook line and sinker. The problem is both issues have been paid for by Christ so there is no worse thing – all of it has been paid for – all the conditions of the fall, which include murdering girls (as horrible as that is) and idolatry. So Aaron is still operating on the this is sin, this is sin mode, and Kwaku beats him through his humanist lens. Bad. Embarrassing. A fail for either man to be doing if they care at all about the God who loved us so much He gave us His Son.

And here again, Aaron’s spirit of Calvin pushes forth. We become what we believe, folks, and someone who believes that God predestines some for heaven and most for a literal burning hell will become like the God they adore. That is why to know him in spirit and truth is vital to life eternal – and why having Him correct in our minds means so much to have our minds correct. Kwaku worships a God who was once a man. The results in the heart of those who see God as such? Arrogance, pride, smarminess, and humanism. Aaron worships a God created by an amalgam of Old Testament, biblical literalism and Calvin’s view of the world, hence anger, a belief and hope for a literal burning actual hell, and ignoring the goodness, the longsuffering, the justice that reconciled the world to himself, and the resultant grace for all people. The video wraps up with another bad comparison of apples to oranges by Kwaku and Aaron not having the mental acuity and spiritual depth to avoid the trap. Again, there is no comparison present in the comparison – it is a game of which is worse.

The Debate's Conclusion

The video ends up appealing to the flesh of men and women through mockery and humor, of which Aaron is the brunt. I don’t appreciate it – because it is not fair. We have come to a point when believers, like Aaron, who mean well might consider letting the LDS people believe as they like and not speak to their collective demise in hell. We might begin to let them be as members and just focus on the evil of their leaders – of whom Kwaku is not. He’s a debater and a logician, a gifted wordsmith (and apparently editor) who sells candy to the junk food public. I love both of these men – though I have trouble liking what either of them do. Perhaps we can enter a better age, an age where we really let people believe what they want to believe, we share if they ask for information, and we love all without disrespect? That seems to be the call from the master – he’ll figure out the rest.

Examining Evidence in Faith

Something that has always confused me, is why opponents of the LDS faith always cite the gigantic amount of evidence of the Bible compared to the non-existence of the same kind of evidence of the BofM. Where did the approach of touting all of the evidence come from and why do people still do it? It certainly couldn’t have come from the scriptures or Jesus because it’s never mentioned as important. And really, saying that we know the cities or ethnic groups existed doesn’t validate anything of importance that happened from the Bible (i.e. miracles performed, lessons taught, visions seen, resurrection). It always makes me think of John 20:29. If, in one of the only instances where evidence was ever demanded for belief, why was the type of evidence so different than any of the evidence propped up by people today? Is the verse not making the point that you evidence of archaeological, genetic, linguistic, etc is a fool’s errand and the opposite of what god expects of us and he never would’ve even thought it necessary? Especially when the last verse of the chapter reveals the only evidence we need (the testimonies of the eyewitnesses).

Personal Experiences and Reflections

Madison Coon: Been following you since 2003, am very grateful that through the years and over time you have never given up your voice. When I first found you it was a 3am channel surf that stopped me in my tracks. I was a return missionary, the 3rd great granddaughter of Prophet John Taylor, and struggling with many many many truths you have eloquently addressed over the years. I have found myself through the process of believing in myself in a world that organizes institutions governed mostly by men to remove your own self worth. Shawn, I value you, I see you, I hear you. Love your sister Madison

Bobby Johnson: What do you think of stories of people dying and seeing heaven and hell?

3 Itty Bitty Piggies Story Time REPLIED: I think it depends on who sees it and what they see and how that differs from what others see. For example, Julie Rowe saw a rather Mormon slant of that, including things proven to not have historically happened when she saw all of religious history… Not just picking on the Mormon slant here either. Has anyone died recently and seen that the Covid-Cult is the scam that it is?

Marcus Rigby: Thanks for all you do Shawn. 18 years an enslaved Mormon. 30 years a happy Christian.

Views on the Trinity

Then FROM LAST NIGHTS SHOW ON THE TRINITY – before I hit on them the topic of the Trinity and God is really not about who is right and who is wrong, in my opinion. Its about getting along and loving each other along the way.

Danny: That was great. Some of what you said was inrrfutably undeniable. But I have a hard time wrapping my head around it. Oh well I never did understand the Trinity simple called it a mystery in which I'm fine with. Admittaly I am one of those folks that just figured God has an infinite intelagence whereas mine is finite comparatively an insect well even less since his intalect is undefinable. LOL I think I'm an more confused now than I was. But hey at least you make me think. 🙂

Shamoa Krasieski: Growing up, I've never considered belief in the Trinity to be especially important. And after researching it in my adulthood, I still think the Trinity is not a very important belief to understand. And honestly, I believe modalism is a better explanation for the nature of the Christian God.

Sarah Leann Young: I love the format of this episode. Putting your arguments up on the screen for everyone to read along as we're hearing them is very helpful. Joe and I really enjoyed watching this one. The Trinity has been the only doctrine I've struggled to understand and accurately present to others as a Christian. You make a lot of good points, and as someone who has read the Bible for her whole life, I have a very hard time disagreeing with you here, even though I was raised on the Trinity doctrine. I'm curious to see what kind of response you get from the Shawn McCraney Haters Club.

Jon O Reardon: You're looking great and have a great team with you. I've a question, what does your tattoos mean? Tell me to f–z-off I won't cry. It's the sharpest tool in the shed. I can't speak I'm a jobsite . God bless everyone.

Examining the Concept of the Trinity

Thank you, Shawn, for this authentic and informative presentation on the subject! May you please touch on the other verses that "Trinity" believers use to support their beliefs, where some of them are not in many or all of the original manuscripts? May you please touch on the fact that Jesus' disciples baptized in his name and not "in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" as stated in Matthew 28:18-20? Also, if God is "All in All" since 70 AD by the complete life of His Son, Jesus, may an individual today (with no religion background) know the true nature of God and Jesus without reading the "Bible"? How? May agape love be the revealer of that info?

Perspectives on the Trinity

O yeah. I'm a uncle brother and dad. Does that make sense? Lucifer has 4 heads so he always walks forward. Look up what does Lucifer look like. God bless everyone….

Why does the deity, who happens to be a singular person, create?

I'm home one is Pentecostal I respect the Trinity and I don't completely understand the Oneness Pentecostal and I don't give up the understand the Trinity but I think with finite Minds we're not going to fully understand everything we do know that the father Son and Holy Ghost Arco equal in call internal that's something that the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons don't agree with and so I don't think completely understand everything but again I I believe in Wonder Woman's Pentecostal my family is contrarian but I do respect them I don't know if I can put you out on everything but Oneness Pentecostal works for me.

3 Itty Bitty Piggies Story Time: The first thing I don't like about the Trinity is that it is too often forced in one way or another, bullying at least. The next thing I don't like about the Trinity is that the bible has more references against the Trinity than for it, so, the Catholic church had to add two more verses to the bible (cram words down God's throat) to "make the Trinity sure and final." Man-made. Yes, man-made and man-enforced – FAIRisees. Bullying a doctrine into acceptance does not make it true, but the opposite, Jesus said, while he was not talking to Himself, Praying to Himself, making the ultimate sacrifice to Himself to appease Himself…

Historical Context of Monotheism and Polytheism

If we do not understand the history of Hebrew and Christian evolution, we cling to the Trinity to keep the Monotheist view pure. Polytheism was the religion of the Hebrews, starting out the bible, until after the Babylonian captivity when they adopted Monotheism tenets of One God, heaven, hell and an adversary (God no longer has to be the good guy And the bad guy too) from Zoroastrianism, and thus they had to backdate the On God into parts of the old testament, but not all of it. You can see the mix in the bible still. We have those fingerprints and many more, including archaeology confirming the Hebrews were most definitely polytheist right before the captivity. The GodS (Elohim) created us and everything in Genesis, but, only our translations do not reflect that. And there is lots more. Evolution of all religions, the reason for endless splits, and Mormonism, and even so many splits in Mormonism… Christianity is far from immune to this natural evolution of religion, god, ethics, scripture, and we thought Mormons were the only ones doing that? Look how far Jesus brought ethics up to date and then his "christian" followers took that backwards again as if they were Pharisees, Zealots which Jesus told us to Never follow blindly.

Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am". Jesus claimed to be God. Shawn is so WRONG! The pharisees knew exactly what He was saying that is why they picked up stones to stone Him for Blasphemy!

How many other variations of the view of God are there?

Thomas saying to Christ o god and so on sits fine with me along with what Paul said. If you think about it Christ is "the god with us" he is talking to Christ as a sort of direct portal to the father. Only the father knows the son and the son knows the father but through the son you can know the father basically. That was my take When I read through the bible for the first time.

The Trinity Debate

MyMagicman21 argues that the concept of the Trinity is very false. This perspective is drawn from passages in John chapter 14, where Jesus says he will go to the Father, and if he goes, he will send another comforter. Shortly after, Jesus states that he will not leave the disciples comfortless, suggesting to MyMagicman21 that perhaps this indicates the same person rather than two separate entities.

Questioning the Shema

M H shares an unpopular opinion on the Shema from Deuteronomy 6:4-9. The word translated to "God" is "elohim," which is a category. M H interprets this as our God being the "elohim of elohim," as explained in Psalm 136:2. Moses warns against pursuing other "elohim" from the peoples around them. M H believes this means there is only one God and expresses skepticism about the Trinity. During a church visit, M H was asked if they prayed to Jesus, to which they instinctively responded, "how else do you pray to God?" M H reflects on this encounter humorously and acknowledges that while Jesus said, "all authority on heaven and earth has been given to me" (Matthew 28:18), the understanding of the Trinity remains uncertain. M H appreciates the clarity of the presenter's take on the "word."

A Perspective from an Ex-Mormon

David Paulk, an ex-Mormon who became a Christian about seven years ago, shares his journey. After watching videos and studying the Bible, David has come to accept the Trinity as truth. He acknowledges good points made in the discussed video and offers Biblical verses for further consideration, suggesting a detailed response to these passages will be provided later.

The discussion on the Trinity remains open, with various perspectives and interpretations presented.