Dec 14, 2011

6: Andy Poland Leaves Mormonism

Concerned Christians’ general manager, Andy Poland, shares the events that led him to leave Mormonism in favor of mainstream Christianity.

Concerned Christians Website: http://www.concernedchristians.com/

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

By Heather C. Podcast 141 Comments

http://www.cautherscounseling.com Wes Cauthers

Another great interview, Heather. Thanks for sharing your story, Andy.
Martin Jacobs

“If it felt good, it came from God and if it felt bad it came from the Devil”. Even so, Andy Poland’s “revelations” as a Mormon led him into adultery. I found it especially telling that none of Andy Poland’s Mormon peers could shed any light on his quandary, possibly because their whole epistemology went no further than testing something on whether it “felt” good or bad. Thank God that when he started to look beyond his own heart for answers, he looked in the direction of Jesus Christ.

Fascinating interview.

Anonymous

Martin not to get confrontational but exactly what more than a feeling do you have that Jesus Christ is the answer? I searched for three years after Mormonism and found religion including Jesus to be man made nonsense. It saved my life from misery and I have never looked back. I ask because I sincerely wonder what or how it is that people end up believing in another story as easily dismissed as Mormonism. Again, those who are Christians will attack like sharks at my comment, but it’s actually sincere and interested in your response. I guess the interview for me showed how truly mentally ill people become when they envision demons and angels and god talking to them. Thanks

Martin Jacobs

Hodjaz,

Why do I believe Jesus Christ is the answer? Partly because he is a mystery, partly because he provides an intellectually satisfying solution to some of life’s bigger questions, and partly because I have chosen to.

Why do I engage with people on this board? Mostly because I am concerned that Mormonism has so misrepresented Christ and Christianity that Mormons or ex-Mormons (like yourself) find it almost impossible to comprehend them. I believe that if you have a better understanding of them, you would be in a better position to decide if they are true or not. However, some of the objections that are commonly put up are ugly misrepresentations, straw-men, and propaganda, which ought to be redressed (e.g. objections against the Trinity, which are actually objections against Modalism).

I have a great deal of sympathy as far as your fruitless search of religion is concerned. In fact, I wonder if the idea that sparked the New Testament was the failure of religion to deliver. Historically, it would make sense, but we’d need to engage in the culture and expectations of first century Judaism, and I hesitate to do so unless the people I’m talking to express an interest in it. To cut a long story short, the conclusion of such an exploration would be that the solution that the NT writers came up with was unique in all human history – the Incarnation. Being unique, however, does not prove that it is true, it just makes it very intriguing. But you still have the witness of the NT to contend with, and it is well attested in a historical sense.

Finallly, I’d like to respond to your comments about hearing voices and the mental soundness of believers like myself and Andy Poland (and many others, including a significant number of the doctors whom you would refer us to).

Of course, you have put me in an impossible position by predetermining the outcome. I’m having to think hard about how to describe what I believe is normal human behavior in ways that will not give you the premise to cart me off to some involuntary mental examination.

On Wednesday, my family and I visited the Holocaust Memorial in the Imperial War Museum in London. It included some exhibits on the euthanasia centers in which the “mentally ill” were meted a permanent solution to their problem. Some were genuinely ill, but for others, their “mental illness” was their inability to reconcile themselves with the regime (which, naturally enough, often resulted in severe depression). None deserved to be euthanised. My point is that, provided they don’t present an immediate danger to the public, it is actually a humanizing thing to allow people to express normal human thought-behaviors without stigmatizing them as mentally ill.

I hope you would agree.

For the record, I don’t hear angels or demons talking to me. I balk at the idea that my internal dialog (my own brain talking to itself) is, or can be, the voice of God. This is where Andy Poland went awry in his Mormon experience (as he said so). His problem was that the Mormon culture in which he was operating told him to rely on this internal voice as if it were the voice of God. There’s a reason for this – Mormonism cannot appeal to history, so it has to appeal to the believer’s internal experience for validation (my earlier article here on ME on Modernism refers, http://mormonexpression.com/blogs/2011/11/14/hi-im-zelph-and-im-a-modernist/).

The danger in this reliance on an internal voice is that it fails to account for the power of suggestion. We are so vulnerable to suggestion, it’s a miracle that anyone experiences any original thoughts at all.

As a believer, my response to any “voice” (including my own) is this; God has spoken (past tense) to us in His Son, Jesus Christ (see Hebrews 1:1-2). This means that if any voice has got anything to say about God, or how we should live, it ought to align with what God has already said. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 puts it in stark terms.) If it doesn’t, it’s not from God (see also 1 John 4:2). This “critical evaluation” of the “voice” was what was missing from Andy Poland’s misadventures, which is why he got himself into trouble.

It’s normal human mental behavior to experience an internal voice. It’s wise to critically evaluate what it says.

Anonymous

Very well thought out and written reply, and from a faithful believing religious person. I stand all amazed. And I’m serious. Thanks

Martin Jacobs

Hodjaz,

Thank you for your comment. Have a happy Christmas!!

Threeburgesses

This guy is lying. He doesn’t speak like he was a mormon. His terms and subject matter, and how he tells his story reflect that he has fabricated most of this narrative. I think Heather needs to corroborate this story with 3rd party witnesses. His conclusions about how to determine truth are contradictory, and carry assumptions that the bible is true, and can be trusted. I have talked with evangelicals who cover all the same points. I predicted most of his story as I was listening to him. I suspect that he is lying for Jesus. And that he sees this as a worthy cause to lie, like Joseph Smith thought it noble to lie about polygamy for Jesus.

Anonymous

Andy isn’t lying. He’s told his story before and his wife has also told the story from her side. I suspect Andy doesn’t speak as a Mormon because he’s been following a mainstream Christian path for many years. He’s runs a prominent ministry in Mesa Arizona. If he wasn’t a former Mormon, people would know.

Threeburgesses

You and I know heather that you can’t get rid of the mormon in you when you grow up in the church. I don’t think he lied about being mormon per se, but I think his story is false. Here are some clues. His story has been told in a way to bring out all the weeknesses in mormonism from the biblical christian perspective. Here’s the list: you can’t trust your feelings; don’t trust emotions or powerful experiences; one false prophesy means you’re not a prophet; blood atonement; Joseph Smiths lies. He admits to knowing about blood atonement, and Joseph Lying to Emma about polygamy, but this doesn’t trouble him, instead he is troubled by Josephs false prophesies? This just doesn’t make sense. He contridicts himself about how truth is determined, since the conclusion he comes to is that you “just know”, yet he told of how a mormon told him this same thing, yet he rejected it. He also speaks as if he never read the new testament before becoming a Christian. His story is a great strategy. Over ten years ago I was hammered by all the same verbatim language and issues by evangelicals. I could tell exactly where his story was going to go. I just think you need to verify some of the important elements from his story. It would be most great if you could get his temporary second wife to corroborate his story. Then I would give him credence. I think you owe it to your listeners to verify this. Someone else besides his wife.

McKay

Heather doesn’t owe anything to her listeners. She already sacrificed her valuable time to do this fascinating interview that is now freely available for anyone to download and enjoy.
Heather and Andy: Great job, and thank you for the interview.
Anonymous

Sorry to disappoint you but I’m not going to start fact-checking people’s stories.

Threeburgesses

I thank you for this interview Heather, It was well done, I will give you that. I don’t think you should have grilled him, and you were very respectable. Perhaps you could post some links to Andy’s work, so those interested could do some research and do fact checking on their own, and then get back and share what they found with the group.
Anonymous

Dear interviewee,

Please provide references for people to use to prove your story is true because there might be people who don’t believe what you say and will demand the right to fact check your life.

Sincerely,
An interviewer who wants their pool of interviewees to dry up in a split second.
Threeburgesses

Touche Heather! Very Clever.
Bob Betts

Actually, I’m replying to Threeburgesses.

You are welcome to our site, http://www.concernedchristians.org, which won’t prove to you that Andy’s not a liar. You may call and talk to him in person at Concerned Christians, at (480) 833-2537, which will not prove that he’s not a liar. If the only proof you’ll accept is to hear it from his adulteress, I’m afraid you’re out of luck, and you’ll have to continue believing and publically calling Andy a liar, if you think that’s the only alternative.

Kevin

Your criticism, if I understand it correctly, is summed up in your statement that “His story has been told in a way to bring out all the weeknesses (sic) in mormonism from the biblical christian perspective.”

For heaven’s sake, that’s what Concerned Christians is all about. He stated this repeatedly. How do you proceed from this premise to the conclusion that his story is an elaborate lie?

Threeburgesses

Because he is clearly inserting fictional elements into his story to bring out those weaknesses. We all know who listen to ME that there is so much better material from mormon sources to discredit the church, you don’t need to make up fictional narratives to do this. I just think he is clearly fictionalizing his story, and I want everyone to think critically about it. Open your eyes people.

Bob Betts

Seriously? You think he’s kept in touch with the woman he committed adultery with some 12 years ago, or so? I also don’t think his wife would approve, do you?
Andy Poland

Threeburgesses,
I don’t expect anyone to simply believe anything I say. I can only report what I experienced, I know my story may not make sense to some, that is ok. I know that my experiences can seem unbelievable. I wouldn’t believe them either if I had not experienced them. My intention is not to convince you just to share what I believe is the truth. Before I started the interview with Heather, I told her of my concern that some may be offended by what I may say. I told her that I have strong reasons for why I believe, I did not want that to come off to someone else that they must believe what I say or even that they must believe in Jesus as I do. My beliefs tell me that God does not force anyone to believe, so I cannot force my beliefs on anyone or else I could not say that I am following my God. My beliefs have given me a hope that is hard to express either in writing or through speaking. It is that hope that causes me to share my experiences with anyone and everyone. Please do not interpret my passion as a sharp sword meant to destroy. I only wish to inspire others to seek what I found.

Andy Poland

Threeburgesses

Mormons who tell the truth don’t think things like Andy was thinking when he claimed to be a mormon. For example, When his wife didn’t die in childbirth, his first moment of clarity was realizing that his prophecy wasn’t true, therefore he was a false prophet. No mormon I know ever has come to that conclusion using those words and thoughts. Also, why not just say he was going to commit suicide? why bring blood atonement into it? Blood atonement is an old old teaching and I have never known any mormon no matter how TBM to actually consider that an option. It just doesn’t add up. Then he says that he didn’t have to tell his first wife about his “second” wife because Joseph Smith didn’t. This just doesn’t add up. Andy is telling his story, trying to make Mormonism look more cultlike, by weaving his story with details from church history that would be disturbing to TBMs. He atttepts to send the message that polygamy is common, that you can’t trust your feelings because they are devilish, blood atonement is still a common teaching, and that prophets are false with one false propehcy. It is clearly designed to scare TBMs who are vulnerable into questioning their feelings. On top of it all, he provides no satisfactory solutions to the dillemma he found himself in. It’s clearly contrived.

Anonymous

Have you read anything about how the brain works? Memory and things of that nature?

Threeburgesses

I have, I took two quarters of general psychology recently. I know how faulty memories can be. I don’t think Andy is a horrible person. I think his faith in Jesus is sincere, but I think he is greatly embellishing his tale, specifically to thwart vulnerable TBMs. I don’t like to see stories such as these so easily gulped by people. I just want people to think critically about the narratives they come accross. I think he was a member of the church at some time, and he is well versed with the issues of mormonism, but I wouldn’t put it past anyone I’ve ever heard or read about who is afilliated with Concerned Christians to lie for the cause and not feel bad about it.

http://www.concernedchristians.org/ Bob Betts

“Mormons
who tell the truth don’t think things like Andy was thinking when he
claimed to be a mormon.”So, you believe that you know all the things that all Mormons think who are telling the truth? Wow.”For example, When his wife didn’t die in
childbirth, his first moment of clarity was realizing that his prophecy
wasn’t true, therefore he was a false prophet. No mormon I know ever has
come to that conclusion using those words and thoughts.”So, since YOU never knew such a Mormon, then no such Mormon could exist? Huh. “Also, why not
just say he was going to commit suicide? why bring blood atonement into
it?”Because, he knew about the doctrine, and the doctrine has never been denied, refuted or dismissed by LDS leadership.”Blood atonement is an old old teaching and I have never known any
mormon no matter how TBM to actually consider that an option. It just
doesn’t add up.”Again. Since YOU never knew such a Mormon, then no such Mormon could exist? Are all Mormon doctrines that are over 150 years old, considered obsolete? If not, then what your beef over blood atonement being an old, old doctrine, which was actually practiced in Utah Territory?”Then he says that he didn’t have to tell his first wife
about his “second” wife because Joseph Smith didn’t. This just doesn’t
add up.”Why not? “Andy is telling his story, trying to make Mormonism look more
cultlike, by weaving his story with details from church history
that would be disturbing to TBMs.”It SHOULD be disturbing to TBMs. The true story of the way Joseph Smith practiced polygamy IS disturbing. Andy did not distort or falsify early Mormon church or Joseph Smith’s history. If you’re disturbed, then good. If the truth makes Mormonism look more cultic, then it is what it is. “He atttepts to send the message that
polygamy is common,”More common then you might know. “that you can’t trust your feelings because they are
devilish,”He quoted the Holy Scriptures: Jer. 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Prov. 28:26 He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered. “blood atonement is still a common teaching,”No, but it is still not denied as a doctrine by present-day LDS leadership, either. “and that prophets
are false with one false propehcy.”Deut. 18:20-22…that’s the clear teaching of God.”It is clearly designed to scare TBMs
who are vulnerable into questioning their feelings.”Feelings do not determine truth from error. People can have good feelings about bad things, and bad feelings about good things. If all absolute, objective truths of God were determined by subjective human feelings, then we would wind up with all kinds of false religions claiming to be Christian. Oh, wait. We already do. Truth is not subject to individual, personal feelings or opinions. “On top of it all,
he provides no satisfactory solutions to the dillemma he found himself
in.”Nonsense. To believe that means you weren’t listening very closely. “It’s clearly contrived.” You are clearly mistaken.
Anonymous

Uhm they do when they are mentally ill and I will leave it at that, but, recommend anyone hearing voices, seeing demons, or believing God is telling them something see a doctor.

Eam137

Andy is telling the truth. I am a former mormon who is now a born-again Bible believing Christian. You can see me on Youtube: Edy Meredith Testimony. What Andy experienced and learned is not unusual for former mormons. We study mormon history, have questions, search, either through personal revelation and/or Bible study, we learn God’s truth instead of Joseph Smith’s many varied and changing truths. God does not lie and does not change. mormonism changes according to what is considered politically correct (polygamy, race relations, divorce, abortion, marriage between one man and one woman/ and marriage between one man and many women. I was raised in the mormon church, had a temple marriage, from a long line of mormons (1835 in Kirtland Ohio). But God graciously saved me to Himself. Threeburgesses, I will be praying that God will bring you out of the prison of mormonism into His glorious light through faith in the Jesus Christ of the Bible.

http://argeiphontes.blogspot.com/ Hermes

For the record, polygamy was never politically correct in the USA. That’s one of the reasons Joseph kept lying about it!

http://www.richardharris.no Richard of Norway

You are lying. You do not speak like a real person. You must be either a robot or an alien. Why are you spreading lies? Stop the deception!

Or…

Maybe you’re a supercilious nitwit who discounts any experience that does not conform to your personal world view.

Threeburgesses

Yes I am a”
nitwit who discounts any experience that does not conform to my personal world view.” I would take this as a slam if I hadn’t already changed my worldview 3 major times. How many time has your worldview shattered? Huh Huh huh?

Bob Betts

I am Andy’s partner at Concerned Christians. We’ve been running the day-to-day operations of the ministry together for the past three years. I’ve gotten to know him over the past nine years since he first arrived at Concerned Christians as a Mormon in transition. I was there for his conversion to Christ, and later, his wife’s conversion. I know his character. He’s not a liar. He’s not dishonest.

I know his wife. She confirms his story.

I’ve never been LDS, myself, I’ve been a follower of Jesus Christ for the past 41 years. I’m 60. I’m a pretty good judge of character, by now.

I’ve even encouraged Andy to leave out the specific of the adultery, and just refer to it as a sin that he committed. But, he insists on telling it like it was. He is willing to admit his shame, to bring glory to God for how He rescued Andy from such delusion, to see and receive the biblical Jesus.

I’ve encouraged Andy to go where people are accusing him of lying or embellishing his testimony to defend himself. He chooses not to get into a debate about whether he’s lying or not. I agree with him. It would be petty.

So, believe what you will. I’m close enough to him to know he’s a man of integrity. You can call me liar, too, if you like. It doesn’t matter. Have a nice life.

Kyle

A great story and interview. But it seemed to me that he switched from one false religion to another. Most of the problems he discovered in Mormonism exist in mainstream Christianity as well. False prophecies? Christianity has them too, including the clear fact that Paul claimed that Jesus would return in his lifetime. Belief based on feelings? As much as Andy wants to think that his “knowing” isn’t a feeling, it is. The fact that he never really critically examined whether the Bible is true parallels his earlier failure to examine the Book of Mormon critically, and reading books by Christian apologists doesn’t change that.

grindael stephenson

If you are speaking of this passage:

13 Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. 14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words. (1 Thessalonians 4)

It says no such thing. It says “we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord”. Paul clarifies it with verse 17: “we who are still alive AND are left”. He obviously knew that some would not be “still alive and left”. This is not a “prophecy”. Christians were taught to live everyday like Jesus would come. Also, that no one would know when that would be. This is far from a “clear fact” that Paul states that Jesus WOULD come in his lifetime. I can say the same thing today, and have it be perfectly correct, “We (as Christians) who are still alive when Christ comes will be caught up to meet Him.” That doesn’t mean I am prophesying that Christ will come in MY lifetime.

http://www.richardharris.no Richard of Norway

It is clear to anybody who critically studies theN that Jeus himself, ad a of s disciples (incl apostles) thought the Messiah (or “Son of Man”) would Coe in their lifetime. Every single generation (incl this one) has expected it. I agree that doesn’t count as a false prophesy by it does tell us that nether Jesus, nor his followers really knew what they were doing.

http://www.richardharris.no Richard of Norway

Crap. When will I learn not to reply from my iPhone?
grindael stephenson

It’s an old debate that sure won’t be resolved here. But “claiming” and “expecting” are two different things. Paul also stated that, “that day shall not come, until the man of lawlessness be revealed.” Paul was smart enough to know that it might not be in his lifetime. His words in Chapter 5 make this clear:

“1 Now, brothers and sisters, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2 for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.”

Sure doesn’t look like he was “certain” of the date. That rules out that he would ever say that it would definitely be in his (Paul’s) lifetime.

http://www.richardharris.no Richard of Norway

The important point we should take home is that neither Jesus nor his followers really knew what they were talking about. It is therefore unwise to put very much stock in the claims and council contained in Bible verses.
Kyle

I never said he claimed it would be a specific date. I said he claimed it would happen during his lifetime. You can claim the latter without claiming the former. The translation can be a bit confusing, because what was actually said is that “we, the alive, the remaining, will be caught up.” It is a definite claim that he would be alive. He didn’t express uncertainty.
grindael stephenson

But Paul never said that Christ would come in his lifetime. His statements that no one knows affirm that.
http://www.richardharris.no Richard of Norway

But Paul never said that Christ would come in his lifetime. His statements that no one knows affirm that.

No, those statements do not confirm that. The “thief in the night” statements show that he didn’t know *exactly* when – he didn’t know the hour, etc. But other statements he made show that he thought it would be in his lifetime – some time before he died.

Elder Vader

Andy Poland, I enjoyed the interview. It was a different flavor than the other voices interviews but it was also very interesting. I appreciate how open you were about your story. That couldn’t have been easy to tell. It sounds like you’ve found peace in your journey and that is great. Good wishes to you.
http://twitter.com/jackrodwell83 Jack Rodwell

take this with which the spirit it was intended but consider changing the opening and closing song. i press play and mute till round 2 minutes thirty seconds because thats when the show starts to get good and im pressed for time.

or get a more upbeat song. love the show other then that

Anonymous

Sorry you don’t like the song, Jack. Happy you still listen in spite of it. ;^)

http://www.richardharris.no Richard of Norway

I’m with Jack but since so many seem to like it I won’t make a fuss. I just don’t care much for country/folk music I guess. But… I do love the show!

McKay

I had a couple questions about some items Andy discussed in the podcast, and I was hoping some M.E. listener (or Andy) could point me in the right direction.

First, I thought that the false prophecy about preaching the gospel to Quakers on the moon (in someone’s partriarchal blessing) came from Joseph Smith *Sr* (the church patriarch) and not Joseph Smith Jr.

Second, I was under the impression that the existing Biblical manuscripts available to scholars today cannot be dated as far back as 70 AD. I want to say that they only date back to as early as 300 AD, or something like that, but I don’t really know and can’t remember where I might have heard this.

Can anyone offer clarification on these points?

Megan

Dang, I’m going to jump in without really being an expert on either!

I believe the ‘Quakers’ prophecy was credited to JS himself but is a second (or third) hand account from Oliver Huntington and was published in the Young Women’s Journal a long time later than the supposed prophecy/revelation. The historian in me would point out this isn’t really reliable witness and could have been invented out of whole cloth by Huntington.

The earliest biblical ‘manuscript’ is a fragment of the Gospel of John and I think it dates from the early 2nd century CE. More complete versions of the gospels show up around 200 CE and the Codex Sinaiticus, which is a reasonably complete manuscript of the NT dates from around the 4th century if I remember right. Of course, it’s not the modern NT with all the books as accepted now and nothing but the books! The dates on the earliest manuscripts for the canonical books of the NT vary from around 120-ish (fragment of John) to possibly 4th c CE for 2nd John or, I think 2nd Peter. And these early manuscripts are often just tiny fragments, not entire books.

Again – disclaimer that I’m not a biblical scholar or a Mormon historian! Hopefully someone can correct any errors I’ve made here.
Fanson

Regarding the quakers on the moon, here’s a fair and balanced view:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/moon.shtml
http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Regarding the extant New Testament manuscript base:

Biblical Manuscripts: (note: these are individual manuscripts)Magdalene Ms (Matthew 26)1st century50-60 ADco-existant (?) John Rylands (John)90 AD130 AD40 years Bodmer Papyrus II (John)90 AD150-200 AD60-110 years Chester Beatty Papyri (N.T.)1st century200 AD150 years Diatessaron by Tatian (Gospels)1st century200 AD150 years Codex Vaticanus (Bible)1st century325-350 AD275-300 years Codex Sinaiticus (Bible)1st century350 AD300 years Codex Alexandrinus (Bible)1st century400 AD350 years (Total New Testament manuscripts = 5,300 Greek MSS, 10,000 Latin Vulgates, 9,300 others = 24,000 copies)(Total MSS compiled prior to 600 AD = 230)

Shane

Listening to Mr. Poland kind of creeped me out. I am not trying to be controversial. I just feel like there were these oddities of what he expected from other people, how he thought other people would act, and how he thought they were thinking. He seemed fundamentally disconnected from reality to me.

I am an atheist. I am not angry at him for speaking out against Mormonism, this is just my reaction to hearing him describe things. Maybe I am way out of line here, but I am wondering if others got this impression.

I should say that I am sure that he is a nice man, and I don’t mean this to be any kind of insult, more I am just articulating my reaction.

Threeburgesses

I totally agree with you Shane. If you’ve read my posts, you’ll see why. I am not attacking him either. I don’t care that he is preaching agaisnst mormonism. But I do care when somebody tells a story such as this and very few people use critical thinking skills to determine how probable his story really is. This is not even that complicated either. I just don’t like seeing people so utterly duped! it is sooo unnecessary.

Anonymous

How, exactly, am I “utterly duped”? Do you think I was completely blind to the dig at Joseph Smith that you mentioned below? I wasn’t. Do you think I’m unaware of how conveniently his story addresses all the evangelical criticisms of Mormonism? I’m not. I’m not eating out of Andy’s palm and I doubt any of the listeners to this episode are, either. In the time between the first interview and the second, as well as other conversations we’ve had, I’ve explained to him that the ME crowd leans more toward skepticism and that they probably won’t accept his Christian explanations in his story.

EVERYONE creates a narrative for their life that suits their beliefs about themselves and the world. Including you.

Threeburgesses

How do you know I was refering to you, Heather? Do you think I am dumb enough to think( after listening to every episode of ME and ME voices) that you would be duped? The duping I speak of refers to those skeptics/atheists who see someone like Andy and shake their head in disgust of religion and/or Mormonism. This is becuase I think Andy discredits personal spiritual experience in favor of a purely historical/reason based approach to Christianity that I believe falls apart because it is the wrong way to go about a faith/spiritual path. I think He made up the part about the revelations that he and his “second wife” recieved, primarily because, yes, it does not fit into my worldview, what’s so wrong with that?

Anonymous

There is nothing wrong with that. But you’re the one who said, “But I do care when somebody tells a story such as this and very few people use critical thinking skills to determine how probable his story really is.” It’s pretty obvious that you think anyone who doesn’t think Andy is a liar is being duped by him.

http://www.richardharris.no Richard of Norway

Wait, how are people being duped???

Threeburgesses

If Andy thinks he was decieved, but yet still so moral, why would he have lied to his wife, except to insert the story of Joseph lying to emma, into his narrative?

Anonymous

The audio you’re listening to is actually the second time I interviewed him. I couldn’t use the audio of the original interview. So we redid it. In the first interview he didn’t make any mention of Joseph Smith lying to Emma. He probably threw it in because it was funny.

If you understand memory then you know that Andy has reframed his experiences through YEARS of evangelical Christianity. That affects the way he remember the events of his life and it affects the way he tells the events of his life. Is the entire story structured to pick apart Mormonism? OF COURSE. That’s what he does!

One of the things about Mormonism is that it’s very easy to use it to justify what you want to do anyway. I am sure that plays into Andy’s story to some degree. I see it in my own experiences with the church. There are things about the church that I picked out and used to fuel / justify other issues I had going on in my life. There is an element of this in LOTS of Mormon experiences. Human behavior isn’t simple or straightforward. It’s messy.

Kevin

I really enjoyed this interview.

One of the things that makes ME so much better than other podcasts about religion is that it is not just believers congratulating each other on how virtuous they are, or atheists congratulating each other on how smart they are.

Anonymous

Thanks Kevin! I’m glad you are enjoying ME. I certainly adore it. (As you might expect. haha.)

grindael stephenson

Threeburg…

If you think that Andy is lying, you obviously haven’t been where he is. Some of us have. And your first comment. “This guy islying”, doesn’t jibe with your later “. I am not attacking him either. I don’t care that he is preaching agaisnst mormonism.”

A few thoughts on your criticisms. “. He doesn’t speak like he was a mormon. His terms and subject matter, and how he tells his story reflect that he has fabricated most of this narrative.”

How so? He does speak like a Mormon. He tells of FHE, Seminary, Youth Conferences, all the same things that I experienced. His father’s experience was exactly like mine, I was converted as a twelve year old who was placed in a Mormon Foster Home. His praying to get a testimony at that Conference is like many others (even General Authorities) who did the same thing. The fact that he doesn’t say that the Bishop and Stake President were harsh, (rather they were quite the opposite), speaks to his truthfulness. Even his polygamy experience is similar to mine. I actually had a similar experience, except that it was in 1977, and it was about the blacks getting the priesthood.

My best friend and myself were standing on his porch a few months before the revelation, and I told him that I felt that God had told me that the blacks were going to be allowed to hold the priesthood. We knew about Young’s stipulation that all the children of Abel would have to get it first, but we both still felt like this would be overruled. It is not a hard leap for Andy to have had a similar experience with polygamy.

His thoughts about the millennium were also in line. Many of my friends shared their blessings with me, and there were some that said they would live to see Jesus return. I remember being disappointed in my own, that it did NOT mention that, but that I would come out of the grave at his coming. But that gave me the expectation that I always had as a member, that the Millennium was not far off.

Andy is telling of his experience from a different viewpoint now. Of course, he has interjected some thoughts into the narrative from his current perspective. This is normal, and it would be more troubling if he DIDN’T do that.

And verification? Really? To get someone to talk about their adultery? Many are not comfortable with such a thing, and it wouldn’t give him any more “credence” to some, because they would just find something else to criticize.

Your statement about Blood Atonement is really naïve. You say, “Blood atonement is an old old teaching and I have never known any mormon no matter how TBM to actually consider that an option”. Actually, Gary Gilmore did, in 1977. And blood atonement was discussed in Utah, and in the rest of the country because of it. I actually worked at a Holiday Inn in Provo with a guy who had been held up by Gilmore, and escaped with his life. The story was fascinating.

Your list, “His story has been told in a way to bring out all the weeknesses in mormonism from the biblical christian perspective…you can’t trust your feelings; don’t trust emotions or powerful experiences; one false prophesy means you’re not a prophet; blood atonement; Joseph Smiths lies. He admits to knowing about blood atonement, and Joseph Lying to Emma about polygamy, but this doesn’t trouble him, instead he is
troubled by Josephs false prophesies?”

He wasn’t troubled about Smith lying to his wife, because he got an exact “revelation” to do the same thing, and he knew Smith himself justified it that way. Many Fundamentalists I spoke with in Utah when I was investigating Adam-god felt the same way, and many had left the SLC branch with the exact same logic. I was heavily recruited by one group, and they used this argument. Smith himself used it, and it is in the History of the Church:

If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven. WHAT MANY PEOPLE CALL SIN IS NOT SIN; I do many things to break down superstition, and I will break it down. HC 4:445 (June 7, 1841)

He was a TBM at this time, while his statements on Smith’s prophecies, were after he had started the questioning the church.

And I had the exact same dilemma in my experience, with having a “witness” about the Priesthood Reversal, and Brigham Young’s Adam God teachings, which were the major reason that I left the church after my mission. I knew then that I could not trust my feelings, or the process of Mormon verification of truth. And Andy never gives the impression that polygamy is “common”. Only the fact that it was still a doctrine of the Church and would be practiced in the Millennium, which I was also taught. Andy’s story resonates with me, because I also had the same experience in trying to get my leaders (and some authorities I met with) to explain it. I got the exact same treatment. I was
also told that it wasn’t something to worry about, that it didn’t really matter. It did to me. I knew Young was a false prophet, because he taught that Adam was God and said it was a revelation. This was never adequately explained to me, and caused me to question my entire experience, the same as Andy.

And his story is ABOUT his exit from Mormonism, which makes itself “look cultlike”. Your statements of “This guy is lying.’, ‘His story is a great strategy,’ ‘It’s clearly contrived’, all show that you are the one “contriving” here, and seem to be able to know for certain when someone is lying. Must be great to be you, and to have such power. But your obvious TBM status and bias shows this to be a great exaggeration on your part.

Threeburgesses

Did that make you feel better to call me TBM Grindael? You know nothing about me I so I will forgive you for that. I am not TBM.I know the vast majority of troubling issues with Mormon history. I have greatly changed and altered my life due to that knowledge. I am a believer, I guess. I feel that Many other Spiritual paths are just as authentic as the mormon path, if not more so. So how am I TBM? I’m also not a republican.:-)
The root of my beef with Andy Poland is how he thinks truth can be determined actually. I’m very interested with how you see how truth can be determined. It seems as though he abandoned one method of determining truth for another that isn’t all that much different. Bart Erhman could destroy Andy’s biblical confidence in 2 seconds flat. Personally, I think that if Andy Truly felt like he was supposed to Marry this other women, and she on her own, came to the same conclusion, and that she was knowing things about him, like his temple name by supernatural means, than He was better off following that path. How many of us can really say that we have had an experience like Andy’s, where another person has the exact same revelation at the same time, without pressure to do so? What better proof of the supernatural do you need than to have a second witness like that? This is why I think he has made that part up(which is what his story hinges upon).
This all hinges upon my philosophy of determining truth. Using pure reason, or rationality, the best one can come up with is agnosticism. Meaning that you don’t know if you can know if there is a way to know anything. Sorry Skeptics, but this is the best you can do. God cannot be disproved. Nor can He/She/It be proved. One must experiencially gain knowledge via(for lack of a better word) spiritual means to know any ultimate reality. When you have such a spiritual experience, if it is authentic, than the experiencer will “know” for him/her self some truth of the supernatural/spritual/God. This will sound like andy’s conclusion except that I am speaking of a knowing that happens while one is “in the spirit” and using non-rational means(take note that I didn’t say IRRATIONAL means) and not just some thought or “knowing” that takes place in normal consciousness. This is so much more than feelings, or emotions.
I guess this is also my beef with the ME crowd. I greatly sympathize with them, and I think all their ciritques about the church are largely correct. ( BTW I have listened to every ME episode and Every Mormon Stories episode as well. ) But I think they largely abandon the inner personal spiritual path with the tossing out of the church. I think this is somewhat detrimental. If the Average ME listener wants to believe that one can’t ever “know” any truth by any means then I think this is sad. I think Glen Ostlund at least hopes that there might be truth(i.e. the supernatural, the Spiritual, God, etc) out there.

http://twitter.com/SLCEXPOSITOR Redim Ido

<>

Balogna! Many of us came to believe in Biblical Christianity BY using reason, rationality, and the natural sciences. I was pretty much an agnostic Mormon, but now an enthusiastic THEIST of our TRIUNE GOD as an Evangelical Christian.

Study the Word, learn some Greek, Hebrew, theology, and you will discover how reasonable it is. Use, there are supernatural elements, but that is where faith must enter. Nevertheless, there is enough evidence on which to build a reasonable faith.

A couple of starting points:

http://www.reasons.org/rtb101
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=content

Dr. William Lane Craig has debated with Dawkins, as well as other skeptics, and brings out many salient arguments, especially in his trademark Kalam Cosmological Argument.

What I am trying to say, is that you DON’T have to sacrifice science and reason in order to be a Christian. Lamentably, there are some Christians who do, but in this modern era, I am not one of them.
grindael stephenson

So you are NOT a TBM? LOL. Would you rather, BM? I do know SOMETHING about you, because of what you said. It’s obvious that you are a “believing” Mormon. If you want to quibble about the “true” part of it, fine by me. You obviously have SOMETHING against Evangelicals, due to your derogatory remarks about them, so I don’t take much credence in your “I feel that Many other Spiritual paths are just as authentic as the mormon path, if not more so.” That rings hollow, in the light of your other comments. And what does “Republican” have to do with TBM status? Are you saying that Mormons must be Republicans to have credibility within the church?

“Bart Erhman could destroy Andy’s biblical confidence in 2 seconds flat.”

Really? You are doing that thing again, claiming to know the future, or what is in people’s hearts. I would be very careful with statements like that. He could “destroy” his confidence? DESTROY it? Bart Erhman is NOT a Christian. Why would you even promote such a man, claiming to be Christian yourself? It’s called poisoning the well, and far too often I see Mormons doing this, quoting atheist material to try and bolster their own claims. How sad this is, to denigrate the Bible, call Jesus Apostles LIARS, (as Erhman does) and use those kinds of arguments to defend a position that NEEDS them, to TRY and make itself palatable. I think Andy could hold his own with Erhman…easily. Dr. James White sure did in 2009 and beyond.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfekyreNuJo You come off as someone that wants to please everybody. You know what Jesus said about that? As for your “opinion” about Andy, well, we all have one, and your logic for calling him a liar is tenuous at best, because you have to claim that you know what he was thinking, and you really can’t claim that, can you?

Threeburgesses

THe Bart Erman comment I used to show how tenuous Andy’s biblical position is. Since it is an uninfomed, scientific-based approach to the truth claims of the bible. I do not “promote” Erman. I brought him up because when you use pure rationality to do scholarship, I believe that you set yourself up to fail spiritually speaking. Have you listened to Jared Anderson’s interview done by John Dehlin on the Mormon Stories Podcast? He is a student of Erhman at UNC. He totally dismantles the bible manuscripts using logic and reason. He manages to stay a hopeful mormon.

Martin Jacobs

Three wrote “Jared Anderson…totally dismantles the bible manuscripts using logic and reason. He manages to stay a hopeful mormon.”

1 I’m not convinced you can “totally dismantle” the Bible, and I don’t object to serious intellectual engagement with it but…

2 …why would a Mormon “want” to do something like that with something that Mormonism claims is the Word of God (8AoF)? The first two motives that jump to my mind are…

3 …to discredit Biblical authority within Mormonism so that Mormons can supplant the Biblical perspective with their own (e.g. swap out only one God (Isaiah 43:10 etc), with an infiinite line of Gods)

4 …to deconstruct the Biblical authority that Christian churches appeal to, so that Mormonism can claim that these “other” churches are apostate and it alone continues the true legacy of Jesus and the first Christians.

5 Finally, what can such a Mormon be “hopeful” of? Perhaps he thinks that by sheer force of the fact that he is a nice guy, and he goes to the right church, he can break down the doors of heaven and enter in.
Threeburgesses

To Martin Jacobs

Actually Martin, Jared Anderson dismantles the book of mormon as well. His point (if you had actually listened to the podcast) was that he feels forced to believe in things of the spirit and has a symbolic faith, rather than placing faith in historical/scientific facts. As far as Believing in Many Gods, The bible is the best source for that doctrine. The first mention of God in the bible in the Hebrew is Elohiem. Which, if translated honestly is a PLURAL noun. Yes, GodS. It also denotes masculine and feminine. So it means the GODS male and Female created the earth. Then next the snake in the garden tempts Eve that she can be as the GODS and can know good and evil. Then, Psalms 82:6 say that “ye are gods, yea, children of the Most HIgh. Jesus then quotes that scripture to the Jews when they accuse Jesus of making himself equal with God. THat’s in John Chapter 10.Then in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 Paul says that there are many gods in Heaven and earth, though he does say that to us there is but one God, and one Jesus. Mormonism believes in one true monotheistic God, but that God has an infinite number of manifestations. While the “biblical” Christian God has only three manifestations. So whose God is Bigger?
Martin Jacobs

To Threeburgesses,

I am well aware of the “Elohim” arguments put forward by polytheist-promoters, such as Mormons.

Short answer – the contexts in which the word is used actually militate against polytheism

Long answer – I invite you to read my own studies on the use of the word in the Psalms here;
http://martinofbrisbane.blogspot.com/2011/05/psalm-82.html
http://martinofbrisbane.blogspot.com/2011/05/psalm-95.html

(Post script here
http://martinofbrisbane.blogspot.com/2011/05/psalm-118-name-of-lord.html
And a prologue here
http://martinofbrisbane.blogspot.com/2011/01/name-of-god.html)

Another stomping ground of anti-Trinitarians is John 20:17, so I wrote a response here…
http://martinofbrisbane.blogspot.com/2011/02/does-john-2017-disprove-trinity.html

Contrary to your assertion, the Bible (OT and NT) is the worst place on which to ground a doctrine of many ontological Gods. Shame on you, and your LDS masters for deliberately ignoring the distinction between the ontological God (the One whom is sometimes referred to as Elohim) and the rhetorical “gods” who are judged by Him.

Threeburgesses

Are you an Evangelical?
Threeburgesses

Evangelicalism is by Andy Poland’s Standard, NOT a spiritual path, since you can’t trust thins of the spirit. since spiritual impressions might tell you to marry a second wife.
Threeburgesses

So, besides thinking that I am an asshole, what really is your beef with me Grindael? And If I am trying to please everybody, I sure am doing a shitty job at it.
Threeburgesses

If my remarks are derogaroty toward Evangelicals, it is only due to the bigotry that I have experienced firsthand from many of them. I have a friend whose wife is an evangelical. She won’t even speak to missionaries on the street. She won’t go INTO a mormon church. She won’t let her husband meet with the elders. Then there is the Christian MOPS (mothers of preschoolers) who have it in their rules that Mormons are not allowed to be in the leadership. I have endured people sneering at me with looks of suspicion. That is bigotry.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Well Threeburgesses, I can’t comment on those situations since I wasn’t there and I’m only hearing one side of the story.

However, I do know what I’ve seen in this discussion thread and since you seem to want to pick at motes and beams here . . .

“A 2001 poll… covering six counties, showed that 86 percent of non-Mormons saw a religion-based divide in Utah, compared with only 58 percent of Mormons. In addition, 60 percent of the non-Mormons said they had experienced either uneasiness or downright discrimination because of their religion. The inevitable Mormon domination of state politics was enhanced in 2000 when appointments by Governor Michael-Leavitt (himself a Mormon) meant the state Supreme Court had an all-LDS membership. That broke the unwritten tradition since 1926 of having at least one non-LDS justice.”
(“Mormon America: The Power and the Promise” (2008 edition) by Richard N. and Joan K. Ostling; p. 114)

And if you’ll recall Gordon B. Hinckley spent a great deal of time addressing the very behavior that we’ve seen from you in this discussion thread:

“We must not only be tolerant, but we must cultivate a spirit of affirmative gratitude for those who do not see things as we see them. We do not in any way have to compromise our theology . . . We can offer our own witness of the truth, quietly, sincerely, honestly, but never in a manner that will give offense to others.”
(President Hinckley, LDS General Conference, April 2005)

“[There] should never be any cause for self-righteousness, for arrogance, for denigration of others for looking down upon others. All mankind is our neighbor. . . . Regardless of the color of our skin, or the shape of our eyes, of the language we speak, we all are sons and daughters of God and must reach out to one another with love and concern.”
(President Hinckley, LDS General Conference, April 2005, Ensign May 2005, 102)

“As we recognize our place and our goal, we cannot become arrogant. We cannot become self-righteous. We cannot become smug or egotistical. We must reach out to all mankind. They are all sons and daughters of God our Eternal Father . . . . And as we go forward, may we bless humanity with an outreach to all, lifting those who are downtrodden and oppressed, feeding and clothing the hungry and the needy, extending love and neighborliness to those about us who may not be part of this Church.”
(President Hinckley, LDS General Conference, October 2001)

“As I have said before, we must not be clannish. We must never adopt a holier-than-thou attitude. We must not be self-righteous. We must be magnanimous, and open, and friendly. We can keep our faith. We can practice our religion. We can cherish our method of worship without being offensive to others. I take this occasion to plead for a spirit of tolerance and neighborliness, of friendship and love toward those of other faiths.”
(President Hinckley, Pioneer Day Commemoration, July 2001)

“But we shall go forward, returning good for evil, being helpful and kind and generous. I remind you of the teachings of our Lord concerning these matters. You are all acquainted with them. Let us be good people. Let us be friendly people. Let us be neighborly people.”
(President Hinckley, LDS General Conference, April 2001)

“Let us as Latter-day Saints reach out to others not of our faith. Let us never act in a spirit of arrogance or with a holier-than-thou attitude. Rather, may we show love and respect and helpfulness toward them. We are greatly misunderstood, and I fear that much of it is of our own making. We can be more tolerant, more neighborly, more friendly, more of an example than we have been in the past. Let us teach our children to treat others with friendship, respect, love, and admiration. That will yield a far better result than will an attitude of egotism and arrogance.”
(President Hinckley, LDS General Conference, April 2000, Ensign, May 2000, 87)

Perhaps this is a case where you should follow the prophet rather than your natural man Threeburgesses as he seems to be speaking good, sound, Biblical wisdom.
Threeburgesses

Gordo is Dead. How TBM is that for you?
http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

YOU WROTE:
” Gordo is Dead. How TBM is that for you?”

MY RESPONSE:
Typically TBM as I said elsewhere in this discussion thread. You’re just working the stereotypical TBM play book from what I’ve seen thus far – albeit the ones that most Mormons try to avoid using in public.

I suspect that if you were using your real name instead of an alias it you would be using the other ones instead.

But I guess it’s now OK for you to be rude, arrogant, condescending, intolerant, self-righteous, denigrating, close minded, disrespectful, bigoted, and hateful since Gordon B. Hinckley is now dead – is that what you’re saying?
Threeburgesses

yes

Martha Golden

Great Podcast. I think organizations like Concerned Christians is important so that people coming out of Mormonism can find joy in Biblical Christianity. God can heal. I call it the safety net. With so many people coming out of Mormonism, this is refreshing to show that there is a different Jesus and how to find him.
http://twitter.com/SLCEXPOSITOR Redim Ido

This podcast is important, because it shows you don’t have to throw God out the window (the proverbial “baby with the bathwater”) when leaving the deception of the Mormon cult. I briefly became atheist after learning about the sordid adventures of Joe Smith, and his inability to maintain his britches safely fashioned at the hips. I discovered the inconsistencies of the theology, and thought that I had tried God, thinking God was a jerk, and buffoon.

Actually, I think my last comment was right on– as the Mormon idea of God is nowhere near the Bible. “Mormon Jesus” was a jerk– he laughed at me as I attempted to become perfect (Moroni 10:32) in order to receive his “grace.” I was in quicksand, and according to Mormon scripture, he would only extend his hand to me just before I was ready to go under. Then somehow, I decided to reread the Gospel of John and Romans. I found a DIFFERENT Jesus– one who was full of love, who would rescue me while still being a sinner, one who would pull me out of the “quicksand” when I first fell in, without having to get worn out, working myself out of the issues with no real assistance.

I accepted the Jesus of the Bible, and as John 14 states, I have the presence of the TRIUNE GOD dwell in me! Not just the Spirit, but I have JESUS in ME! My life is victorious in Him! I am able to have hope and faith again!

I encourage those atheists to really study the Word, look at the evidences that support the Bible (I’ve looked at both sides, and stand by the Bible. Lee Strobel’s “Case for Christ” and several books by Josh McDowell are excellent starters. Both were atheists who found overwhelming evidence FOR the God of the Bible and changed their lives because of it.) Please don’t compare the whimpy god of Mormonism (not eternal, not capable of be omnipotent by just “organizing matter,” once was a sinning man who became exalted) with the ALMIGHTY of the Word! But please, DON’T TAKE MY WORD! Test the prophets, test the spirits, SEARCH IT OUT!
Threeburgesses

Heather,
It sounds like half of your listening audience is Evangelical Christian. Perhaps you were wrong about skeptics being the main listenership. Unless….this comment blog is being infiltrated by Members of the “Out of Mormonism” and “Concerned Christian’ crowd.

Anonymous

Uhhh…… I kinda expected Andy to tell people he’d bee on our show and that they’d comment. Seems natural to me. It’s also a chance for ME to grow its audience. Perhaps some of these people will tune in next week. Sounds like a win-win to me.

http://www.richardharris.no Richard of Norway

I finally got around to listening to this. How anybody could claim Andy is lying is beyond me. Nothing in his story seems incredulous or fishy to me at all. He appears very genuine and honest. I have no reason to doubt him, and have even experienced a few of the same things myself. So why is it so strange to some people? Even if strange, why should anybody doubt it as *his* experience – equally valid to their own? Seems to me pure arrogance to not trust this man to be sincere to his word.
http://argeiphontes.blogspot.com/ Hermes

This story doesn’t strike me as implausible. The human mind is a strange thing, especially when it believes absolutely in things that are not there. Andy certainly isn’t the only person to come up with burning questions whose answer requires more than an easy prescription to read more. (This prescription can also backfire catastrophically, especially if you are reading religious texts.)

It is impossible to live without trusting one’s feelings somewhat. It is also impossible to live without criticizing one’s feelings on occasion, stepping outside them to evaluate them dispassionately. Feelings are not always right, but they are sometimes the only actionable criteria available (a fact that makes us all gamblers at some point). If you spend time over-analyzing the tiger to see if it is real (or just a shadow in the woods), it is going to eat you.

My answer to Andy’s question about God and the devil (which is which?) is that they are the same: God and the devil are projections of our imagination, thoughts and feelings that we have. God is what we call projections that end up leading us to happiness. Projections that lead us to misery we call the devil. I agree with Andy’s Popperian reading of the scriptures (when a prophet’s predictions fail, he is no prophet; when they succeed, he might be): in my mind, this reading invalidates pretty much every prophet who has ever claimed the title, including Jesus Christ; the author of the Book of Ecclesiastes is OK, since he doesn’t claim to know anything prophetic (except that things recur: last time I checked, this was still true). The problem with this way of thinking is that it only lets you know what isn’t true: positive truth is unknowable, since it might be debunked at any moment. I think the rational end of this train of thought is either mysticism (where positive truth is unknowable but somehow real: e.g. Sufism, apophatic Christianity, Hinduism as practiced by the Upanishads, Buddhism) or atheism (where positive truth is unknowable, but we don’t dress it up with incense, paintings, and ancient hymns). Some of us, like me, get stuck in both worlds: I like old stuff, but I think it is mostly just pretty without being necessary (or “true” in the positive sense).

It seems to me like Andy ultimately found a better place to be. I don’t think that means that everyone, or even every Mormon, would be happy following his footsteps. I won’t be joining him. After spending the last 15 years studying Latin and Greek (along with some biblical Hebrew as an undergrad and two semesters of Arabic), I don’t buy the special authority of the Bible: for me it is a collection of myths like many others (the Koran, the Rig Veda, the Iliad, the Eddas, etc.). The fact that ancient people said stuff doesn’t make it positively true (for me, anyway: I think I would doubt the ancient apostles for roughly the same reasons I doubt their modern counterparts in every church).

http://argeiphontes.blogspot.com/ Hermes

I cannot resist a final flippant comment, however. If anyone reads early Mormon history and decides on that basis that it is a good idea to keep one’s amorous escapades secret (from one’s spouse and/or the people whose partners one is tapping), then that person is nuts.

ward

I did not like the interview.   Andy seems like a nice guy but his revelations are a bit flaky. Either he is not telling the truth or he is a religious nutcase. I think the latter is more probable. Religions of all flavor attack nut cases. Who else would go?   His “revelations” seem very questionable. Like the lord tells him things like ”your first wife will die” c’mon. Really.   The lord tells him that the woman that walks across his threshold will be his wife. He is a nut job. The lord did not tell him that and the devil did not either. He is a nut job. What other kind of guy would think of Blood atonement to clean up his adultery.    Sounds more like a lie all the time. He takes some of the lies out of the JofD that lots of “Christian” churches study and he makes a story around it.   Real members have never heard of Blood atonement unless they are on the way out anyway. Evangelical nuts have.

So he questions his “revelations” because he does not know if they come from the mythical being God or the mythical being the devil. How about they came from his own mind!

I gave up on Mormonism after many years and mission and temple marriage etc. After I gave up on my particular faith I was brave enough to look at Christianity with the same eye. It fell apart quickly too.    Andy claims to have looked at Christianity the same was as he critically looked at Mormonism. Bullcrap. He went to his local Christian church to ask for a book to answer his tough questions! That is like having tough Mormon questions and going to bookcraft or the ward library. If he was really asking there are good books out there like those from Sam Harris or John Loftus or the recently deceased Christopher Hitchens.

So he found Biblical Christianity. As an ex mo I do not believe in the LDS church but I will defend that they are Christians even though I am more of an atheist now. They do not talk about Christ a lot directly. True, but you are way off if you think they are not.

He pulls out the classic anti line about one prophetic statement wrong he is a false prophet. Apply the same to your biblical prophets! Oh you don’t want to do that.   You like your error free bible. You like that it is okay to beat your slaves or kill men women and children of a different culture. You like talking donkeys and an arc that holds 2 million species and is maintained by 8 people with all the food needed for a year while the rest of the world is under water.   You like the New Testament part that yours should be the first hand in killing your unbelieving child.

Summary… you are a fraud as others have said or you are just a nutjob that stopped thinking when he gave up on the LDS silliness…

Anonymous

I find the way people are so willing to attack others online to be quite interesting.

http://argeiphontes.blogspot.com/ Hermes

I think we attack people whose character strikes us as threatening. Usually, personal proximity obliges us to keep a lid on it, at least somewhat, but the Internet leaves us free to open up. Mormons and Protestants have been at each other’s throats since the nineteenth century. Blood was spilled on both sides. Relations have improved, especially since we left off pillaging and killing, but we still trade insults.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

@ThreeBurgesses
ThreeBurgesses, I am going to try to leash in my sarcasm, because your post was so full of ignorance that’s it’s tempting to just let it out for a romping frollick. However, that would be both unkind and unfair so I will do my best here . . . please forgive me if I relapse.

First, and respectfully, may I politely suggest that if you’re going to address Biblical Theology that you first find out what Biblical Christians actually know and believe? In other words, “Ask don’t tell.”

Do you really think that we’re shocked by anything in your post? Do you you really think that we’re ignorant of the Hebrew names of God? Do you really think that we’re shocked by any of the passages that you’ve cited or are ignorant of them? Do you really think that we haven’t had these discussions with many a TBM Mormon before you?
(and despite your protests to the contrary you are CLEARLY a TBM both in tone and in behavior)

Think again.

And do you really think that Bart Ehrman is addressing issues that haven’t been discussed, dissected, and debated over the 300+ year history of Higher Criticism?

If so, think again – again. Ehrman has merely popularized and repackaged them for a new and increasingly cynical generation undergridded by skepticism.

But enough editorial comment – let’s boogie!

YOU WROTE
“As far as Believing in Many Gods, The bible is the best source for that doctrine. The first mention of God in the bible in the Hebrew is Elohiem. Which, if translated honestly is a PLURAL noun. Yes, GodS.”

MY RESPONSE
I’m shocked! Shocked I tell you! Whoa!!!! They’ve been translating it WRONG for all these years??? Whoa!!!! Wait, I’ve gotta go find a Rabbi and tell him right now!! Shocked!
(oops, relapsed already – sorry, I’ll leash myself back in now)

No, ThreeBurgesses, the honest translation is “God” when referring to the God of the Bible.

While it’s true the word takes a plural form and can be translated “God” or “Gods” it was and never has been understood or translated “Gods” when referring to the Jewish God throughout history unless to do so would be contextually in error or other considerations.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#God_of_Israel.2C_with_singular_verb )

The key touchstone and defining text for the use of Elohim, like so many other things in Judeo-Christendom, is the Shema:

“Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God — the LORD alone.”
– Deuteronomy 6:4

Or transliterated:

In English: “hear-you Israel Yahweh Elohim-of·us Yahweh one”
In Hebrew: “shmo ishral ieue alei·nu ieue achd”
(see http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/deu6.pdf )

And the last word “achd” (aka “echad”) means “united one”

So in the Shema we are given a picture of ONE God, who is both, united and plural.
In other words, the Trinity.

As Ken Samples notes well:
“The central purpose of the Shema is to proclaim the truth of monotheism (belief in only one God). Historic Christianity readily affirms this doctrinal truth since the Christian faith builds upon ancient Judaism and is clearly a monotheistic religion in its own right.

Christianity maintains a Trinitarian monotheism. The word Trinity literally means “tri-unity” or “three in one.” The one God subsists as three distinct persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Trinitarianism affirms that each person in the Godhead possesses fully and equally the one divine nature. The Trinity thus expresses a diversity of personhood within the unity of God’s being or nature.

Does the Trinitarian monotheism of Christianity conflict with the apparent strict monotheism found in the Shema? The answer is no for three reasons.

1) The Hebrew word for one used in the Shema, (ehad), can designate a collective unity (Genesis 1:5; 2:24; Numbers 13:23). So when the Shema proclaims God to be one it can mean a complex unity instead of a strict numerical unity. This understanding is consistent with the Christian view of “diversity within unity.”

2) The Hebrew word for God, elohim, is also generally found in the plural. Thus, this term can also allow for a personal diversity within God’s unity of being.

4) There are a number of places in the Old Testament where God is spoken of in the plural (Genesis 1:26-27; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8). These passages also allow for God’s three-in-oneness, revealed more explicitly in the New Testament. Therefore, the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity is compatible with the ancient monotheistic Shema. In fact, later Christian creeds built upon the truth of Israel’s creedal statement.”
(see http://www.reasons.org/theology/creeds/israels-creed-shema-part-5 )

YOU WROTE
“It also denotes masculine and feminine.”

MY RESPONSE
That’s correct. So far so good . . .

YOU WROTE
“So it means the GODS male and Female created the earth.”

MY RESPONSE
And right off the tracks you go with your conclusion.

The fact that God is presented as BOTH male AND female in the Bible is hardly a surprise – all you have to do is read it:

God is usually characterised as male in Biblical sources, except: female in Genesis 1:26-27,[5][6] Psalm 123:2-3, and Luke 15:8-10; a mother in Hosea 11:3-4, Deuteronomy 32:18, Isaiah 66:13, Isaiah 49:15, Isaiah 42:14, Psalm 131:2; a mother eagle in Deuteronomy 32:11-12; and a mother hen in Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_God#In_the_Hebrew_and_Christian_Bible )

However, that doesn’t mean that God has gender, it merely means that He uses gender as an analogy to describe one of His attributes in a way that gender-based humans can understand.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_God#In_the_Hebrew_and_Christian_Bible )

Your conclusion is a corruption of both the text and the author’s original intent and meaning. It is pure eisogesis – the act of putting meaning into a text where it is not there.
(see http://idontknownuthin.com/wiki/index.php/Eisogesis_objection ; retrieved 2011-05-11)

YOU WROTE
Then next the snake in the garden tempts Eve that she can be as the GODS and can know good and evil.

MY RESPONSE
And of course, we can believe everything that the serpent said in Genesis 3:4&5 can’t we?

‘“You won’t die!” the serpent replied to the woman. “God knows that your eyes will be opened as soon as you eat it, and you will be like God, knowing both good and evil.”’

And, if you want to take the lie literally, word-for-word, it ONLY said explicitly that they would acquire the God-like attribute of knowing good and evil.

Oh, and “Oops!” on that, “You won’t die!” part! How’s that workin’ for ya ThreeBurgesses?
(oops, sarcasm. Reeling it back in . . . now)

Oh well.

YOU WROTE
“Then, Psalms 82:6 say that “ye are gods, yea, children of the Most HIgh.”

MY RESPONSE
Oh if only had a “Twenty” for every time I’ve been over this one with Mormons . . . I’d be too rich to be doing it again!

However, Martin Jacobs has already done a superb article on this passage so I will simply refer you to it…
http://martinofbrisbane.blogspot.com/2011/05/psalm-82.html

…and I will only cite from his summary conclusion for the sake of brevity (although I do recommend the entire article):

“…when the God turns up in the assembly of the lesser Gods, He does not like what He sees, and he pronounces judgment on them. No longer are they given the privileges of deity, they are effectively cast down into the human realm, where they will die like humans (Verse 7). They might have it good for a while, like the eponymous prince of the Psalm, but their days are numbered. Empirically, we know this to be true, because who today worships Zeus, or Apollo, or Baal, or Ashteroth, or any of these pagan tribal deities? They starved to death when their followers stopped feeding them with their sacrifices. For all intents and purposes, they have “died”.

Finally, then, one has to wonder at the “uber-ness” of the God in judging these “lesser” gods. This is not a case for either henotheism or polytheism, but rather a case against them both in no uncertain terms. There is only One God who has the right and the authority to judge these lesser gods. He calls them to account, and they are subject to Him. The implication in the Psalm is why bother with the monkey when you should be dealing with the organ-grinder.

The fact that the God judges and outlives the “other” Gods should be enough to dismiss this Psalm as supporting the Mormon doctrine of Eternal Progression. It must be noted that the direction of travel for these other heavenly beings is not upwards, as Eternal Progression proposes, but downwards. These “Elohim” are not headed to eternal life, but to mortal death because of their manifest failures and injustices. They are subject to the judgment of the “Elohim”, which would be a reversal the Biblical idiom, because, if Eternal Progression were true, the son would be judging his fathers.

In conclusion, I believe Psalm 82 has a message that is highly relevant in today’s pluralistic culture. Whatever “gods” are worshipped today, they are subject to judgment by the God, who guarantees that justice will prevail.

The Psalm also speaks of a perspective that is foreign to us in our modern context; that the upholding of human justice has cosmological implications. Today, we tend to view morality as a question of personal choice, or preference. In the Psalmist’s view, the failure of the “gods” in upholding justice threatened the very fabric of the universe, and only the intervention of the God could save the world from oblivion.”
(source = http://martinofbrisbane.blogspot.com/2011/05/psalm-82.html ; retrieved date of post)

YOU WROTE
“Jesus then quotes that scripture to the Jews when they accuse Jesus of making himself equal with God. THat’s in John Chapter 10.”

MY RESPONSE
John 10:34-36 to be precise. But again, you err. To quote from David A. Reed and John R. Farkas

“Rather than testifying to the plurality of Gods, Jesus was here making a contrast. He was contrasting himself with those who were called gods in Psalm 82. The Jews listening were familiar with the psalm and knew that the word of God was spoken against those individuals who were thus referred to. The point Jesus made, in effect, was ‘If individuals like that can be called ‘gods,’ how can you object to my saying I am God’s Son?’ He was not teaching polytheistic theology.”
(David A. Reed & John Farkas, “Mormons Answered Verse By Verse”; Baker Book House, 1992; p.75; http://books.google.com/books?id=VoDAuHnjBJYC&pg=PT43&lpg=PT43&dq=john+farkas+ye+are+gods&source=bl&ots=KALXSERGe7&sig=2DcxqG-bSgWG_At9XOrrJTTC7YA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TiXxTtWnO4Xg2QWki8SpAg&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)

So let’s look at what God (big G) says to those so-called gods (little g) in Psalm 82 shall we?

Psalm 82 (NLT)
1 God presides over heaven’s court;
he pronounces judgment on the heavenly beings:
2 “How long will you hand down unjust decisions
by favoring the wicked?

Interlude

3 “Give justice to the poor and the orphan;
uphold the rights of the oppressed and the destitute.
4 Rescue the poor and helpless;
deliver them from the grasp of evil people.
5 But these oppressors know nothing;
they are so ignorant!
They wander about in darkness,
while the whole world is shaken to the core.
6 I say, ‘You are gods;
you are all children of the Most High.
7 But you will die like mere mortals
and fall like every other ruler.’”

8 Rise up, O God, and judge the earth,
for all the nations belong to you.

And as Martin points out in his excellent article, the term “gods” has double meaning here – it also refers to the corrupt Jewish Judges (who were of course human) who were not exercising justice toward the poor and the orphans whose cases they had been given stewardship.

Sorry. No polytheism here ThreeBurgesses. No henotheism. Just the real ONE true God of Israel denouncing the MANY false gods of the earth along with their servants: unjust judges.

YOU WROTE
“Then in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 Paul says that there are many gods in Heaven and earth, though he does say that to us there is but one God, and one Jesus.”

MY RESPONSE
I Corinthians 8:5&6 says:

“1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (NLT)
There may be so-called gods both in heaven and on earth, and some people actually worship many gods and many lords. But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life.”

And I noticed that you took the passage of out context in order to support yet another case of eisogesis. So let’s add in the preceding and following verses:

“1 Corinthians 8:4-7 (NLT)
” 4 So, what about eating meat that has been offered to idols? Well, we all know that an idol is not really a god and that there is only one God. 5 There may be so-called gods both in heaven and on earth, and some people actually worship many gods and many lords. 6 But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life.

7 However, not all believers know this. Some are accustomed to thinking of idols as being real, so when they eat food that has been offered to idols, they think of it as the worship of real gods, and their weak consciences are violated.

In context Paul is clearly comparing and contrasting FALSE “so-called gods” against the one TRUE God of Israel.

YOU WROTE
“Mormonism believes in one true monotheistic God…

MY RESPONSE
ThreeBurgesses, that’s nonsense! Mormonism is clearly henotheistic:

“Christianity has taught monotheism from its foundation, the belief in the existence of one God. Mormonism believes in the existence of a plurality of gods. According to Mormonism, there are an infinite number of planets like earth in the universe, each with their god or gods who were once men who have evolved into godhood. Mormon theologian and Apostle Bruce McConkie states, “[A] plurality of gods exist . . . there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods.”{3}

Joseph Smith wrote, “In the beginning, the head of the gods called a council of the gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and (the) people in it.”{4}

The Pearl of Great Price states in the Book of Abraham, “And they (the gods) said: let there be light and there was light. And they (the gods) comprehended the light, . . . and the gods called the light Day and the darkness they called Night. . . .” In these two chapters, the plural designation “gods” is used over fifty times.

Although they believe that numerous gods exist, Mormons consider themselves to be monotheists because they focus their worship exclusively on the Godhead of this earth. With this being the case, a more accurate description of Mormon practice is henotheism, a form of polytheism that stresses a central deity.“
(Pat Zukeran, “Mormon Doctrine of God”; http://wri.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/mormon-god.html )

YOU WROTE
“… but that God has an infinite number of manifestations.”

MY RESPONSE
Now I’m beginning to wonder if you even understand LdS Theology. Please refer to the citations from Bruce R. McConkie and Josepsh Smith in the Pat Zukeran article above. Sorry NOT it’s “an infinite number of manifestations”, it’s an infinite number of gods.

YOU WROTE
“While the “biblical” Christian God has only three manifestations.”

MY RESPONSE
That statement reveals that you not only have no clue about Mormon Theology but Trinitarian Theology as well.

Not manifestations ThreeBurgesses, PERSONS – as in three persons, one being. As in 3-in-One.

Mormon Theology is Three persons, three beings, one godhead. It’s heno-theistic, polytheism.

YOU WROTE
“So whose God is Bigger?”

MY RESPONSE
A: The eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscience One true God of Israel. In other words, YaHWeH Elohim.

There is was none before Him, or after Him.

Isaiah 43:10 (NLT)
“But you are my witnesses, O Israel!” says the LORD. “You are my servant. You have been chosen to know me, believe in me, and understand that I alone am God. There is no other God–there never has been, and there never will be.

To which I can only respond:
“Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!”
(Deuteronomy 6:4, NASB)

Threeburgesses

Joseph Smith Said,” Could you gaze into heaven five minutes you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject.” When you have done so, Fred, Martin, Andy and whoever the hell else, I’ll listen.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Two questions:

1) How do you know that Joseph Smith, Jr. actually gazed into heaven?
2) How can you state with such absolutist language that we haven’t?

Threeburgesses

1) I was moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

2) If you had, you wouldn’t need to past 6+ pages of other peoples experiences/scriptures to back up your claims.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Regarding #1:
And how is that different than a Branch Davidian stating they know that David Koresh was a true prophet of God by being moved on by the Holy Ghost? Ditto for a Scientologist who has a “witness” of L. Ron Hubbard, or member of The People’s Member who has a “witness” of Jim Jones?

Subjective truth – even subjective experience in and of itself means NOTHING. It must be validated by objective truth – see my next point.

Regarding #2:
That’s Biblical epistemology ThreeBurgesses. They wrote the New Testament and filled it with other people’s experiences/scriptures to back up their claims.

Biblical epistemology is subjective truth, verified by and in continuity with established objective truth – it’s BOTH not either/or. Revelation that hasn’t been verified by and is in continuity with objective truth can’t be trusted, as the Bible says:

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”
– Jeremiah 17:9

“He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.”
– Proverbs 28:26

The bible is clear that we cannot trust our hearts in matters of truth so.. how are we to test the spirit that produces these “feelings” (burning in the bosom, etc.) to be sure they are of God?

The Bible gives the answer – it tells us:

“Test all things and hold fast to that which is good”
– 1 Thessalonians 5:21

“Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.”
– 1 John 4:1

“…if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”
– Galatians 1:8

“…I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him…

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.”
- II Corinthians 3&4,13-15

And the objective, absolute “plumb line” that we are use any truth claim or subjective feeling is the written word of God – the Bible.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
– “2 Timothy 2:1

“…if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”– Galatians 1:8

“Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”– John 20:30-31 (NIV)

And the Bible gives us a case study of how this worked in the primitive church:

“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
– Acts 17:11

And despite your condescending, rude, and disrespectful presumption I have a ton of subjective revelation that I can draw from. However, I don’t talk about it much because it only has real weight and value if it’s been validated by scripture.

As for you rejecting it sight unseen simply because I insist on stressing what matters – objective truth I only ask one thing:

Who died and made you God?

Threeburgesses

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth
(PRECISELY WHAT I WAS SAYING); comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned( NOT BIBLICALLY DISCERNED).
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.(I GUESS IF I’M SPIRITUAL, YOU CAN’T JUDGE ME.)
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

(New Testament | 1 Corinthians 2:10 – 16)

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Another fabulous job of eisogesis!

Congratulations, you’re very good at it.

However, if the Apostles used your system of epistemology and interpretation then why did they include proof texts from the extant Bible of their day (the Old Testament) to support their arguments throughout the Bible – not to mention the very discourse that you’ve cited from?
(The discourse actually starts in I Corinthians 1:6 and ends in I Corinthians 4:17 – once again you are interpreting out of context. )

You see this in:
- 1 Corinthians 1:19 where Isa 29:14 is cited.
- 1 Corinthians 1:31 where Jer 9:24 is cited.
- 1 Corinthians 2:9 where Isa 64:4 is cited.
- 1 Corinthians 2:16 where the Septuaguint version of Isa 40:13 is cited.
- 1 Corinthians 3:19 where Job 5:13 is cited, and
- 1 Corinthians 3:20 where Ps 94:11 is cited.

So apparently poor Paul was a poor unenlightened, carnal sod like myself who, “who can’t hang with the Spirit of God” and was testing all his personal revelations against the objective truth of the Bible to make sure that he was in continuity, not discontinuity with it.

Poor unenlightened, carnal, “natural man” Paul!

Of, and BTW, Paul ends one of the sub-points in this long discourse with these words:

“…don’t boast about following a particular human leader.”
– 1 Corinthians 3:21

Just thought that you should know since you seem to be so enamored with that Joseph Smith, Jr. fellow! You might want to keep an eye on that.

Threeburgesses

Bruce R. Mckonkie was Wrong on so many many things. I think he violated his authority on many many ocasions. How TBM is that for you?

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

It’s actually VERY TBM.

You should read Martin’s article on PostModernism to gain a better understanding of why:
http://mormonexpression.com/blogs/2011/11/14/hi-im-zelph-and-im-a-modernist/

Here’s the salient line:
“…the modernist sees himself as the author of his own story, and it’s a story that starts with his own advent…”And here’s how it works in Mormonism: ”Yesterday’s doctrine is today’s heresy. Today’s doctrine is tomorrow’s heresy.” And since Bruce R. McConkie is dead and out of vogue, I would expect you to toss him onto the ash heap just as you have with Gordon B. Hinckley elsewhere in this discussion thread.In fact, TBMs will leave throw anyone and anything onto said ash heap to protect the institution of the LdS Church – living or dead, past or present. It really doesn’t matter. So who or what’s next ThreeBurgesses?

Threeburgesses

Yep, I’m a post-modernist

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Then we’d might as well be try to reason with Jello – you’ll just morph to suit the existential moment and jettison whatever no longer suits you.

It’s an irrational system that’s completely relative and utilitarian.

Threeburgesses

I don’t protect the current/past institution of the church. I have not spoken for the church once in this discussion. I do not apoligize for the church’s actions, nor need I.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

ThreeBurgesses, that’s practically all you’ve done in this thread thus far: Protect the institution of the LdS Church by protecting it’s founding prophet and it’s doctrine.

And the statement, “I do not apoligize for the church’s actions, nor need I” is a perfect example of it. I agree with Richard of Norway, you’re a liar. Either you’re lying to us, you’re lying to yourself, or (most likely) you’re doing both.

K girl

I have been following ME for awhile, and enjoy listening to the interviews. This was a good one. I also enjoy reading through the comments section; almost as much:) Many differing opinions and beliefs have been shared in this thread which make it really interesting to read.

I do have some questions concerning the following assertion by Threeburgesses:

“As far as Believing in Many Gods, The bible is the best source for that doctrine. The first mention of God in the bible in the Hebrew is Elohiem. Which, if translated honestly is a PLURAL noun. Yes, GodS. It also denotes masculine and feminine. So it means the GODS male and Female created the earth.”

I feel I must respond to this assertion by questioning your source of information.

Are you fluent in Hebrew?

Are you trained in the linguistics and translation of ancient Hebrew?

Are you really saying that the House of Israel, the Hebrews, have misunderstood their language for thousands of years?

Or are you saying that modern Jews are apostatizing from an ancient understanding of how many Gods they worshipped, by deciding to only worship one of them?

Thanks

Threeburgesses

No, Nor do I need to be to understand one word

No.

Yes

no

K girl

How is it that the Hebrews have misunderstood their language for thousands of years and yet you, who admittedly does not know their language, understands it?

Thanks

Threeburgesses

I have a Rabbi for a Neighbor and He agrees with me.

K girl

Really? A real Jewish Rabbi agrees with you that Elohim (spelled Elohim, not Elohiem BTW) means that the God of Israel is actually a plurality of Gods, and they are male and female?

Which Synagogue does he teach at? I would love to converse with him and find out his reasons for believing this. The Rabbis that I know disagree most strongly with this assertion!
K girl

Whether you have a neighbor who agrees with you, or all of Mormonism who agree with you, you still haven’t answered my question.

How is it that the Hebrews have misunderstood their language for thousands of years and yet you, who admittedly does not know their language, understands it?
http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

I too – like K girl – would like to converse with that Rabbi and find out how he can consider himself Jewish in direct contradiction to the most basic tenet of Judaism: Monotheism.
http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Of course you won’t mind if we speak to him and confirm that you’re understood him correctly – right?

You can click on my profile to send me a PM with the contact information. I’ll take it from there.

Thanks.

Threeburgesses

He is a reformed Jew. He in fact told me he sees God in everyone.

K girl

Threeburgess said:
“He is a reformed Jew. He in fact told me he sees God in everyone. ”

Response:
Of course he sees God in everyone, it is a central tenent of Judaism (and Christianity) that mankind is created in the image of God. And it is true that Reform Jews (some of them) believe in the indwelling of God within mankind…but so do Christians.

The thing is, seeing God in everyone is NOT the same thing as believing in a plurality of male and female Gods.

Reform Jews uphold the central beliefs of Judaism, one of which is God; as in one God, monotheism. It is true that they often have differing views of that one God than Rabbinic Judaism. Reform Judaism can sway from agnostic humanism to Orthodoxy while embracing God. However, it still maintains belief in only one God.
Judaism is a monotheistic religion. It believes and professes only one God, as defined by the Shema. Which says, “Hear O Israel the Lord our God, the Lord is One. Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever “(Deuteronomy 6:4-9).

So Threeburgesses, does your neighbor really believe in and teach a plurality of male and female Gods?

And what is his name and the Synagogue where he teaches? I would like to converse with him.
“Sh’ma Yis’ra’eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad. Barukh sheim k’vod malkhuto l’olam va’ed.” http://www.jewfaq.org/prayer/shema.htm .” http://www.jewfaq.org/prayer/shema.htm Sh’ma Yis’ra’eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad. Barukh sheim k’vod malkhuto l’olam va’ed.” http://www.jewfaq.org/prayer/shema.htm .” http://www.jewfaq.org/prayer/shema.htm “Reform Judaism affirms the central tenets of Judaism – God, Torah and Israel – even as it acknowledges the diversity of Reform Jewish beliefs and practices. We believe that all human beings are created in the image of God, and that we are God’s partners in improving the world.”(Union for Reform Judaism)http://urj.org/about/reform/whatisreform/”Though central to its theology, the reform (progressive) Jewish movement has expressed a wide spectrum of views of God. One finds within the movement both an agnostic humanism and a traditional devotion to God.For example, the landmarkPittsburgh Platform declared: “We recognize in every religion an attempt to grasp the Infinite, and in every mode, source, or book of revelation held sacred in any religious system the consciousness of the indwelling of God in man. We hold that Judaism presents the highest conception of the God-idea… as the central religious truth of the human race.”"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beliefs_and_practices_in_Progressive_Judaism”Some few Jews are ideologically secular. They may be atheists who do not believe in the existence of a god. Or they may be agnostics, unsure of whether or not God exists. Among religions, Judaism is somewhat unique in that it makes room for both atheists and agnostics to remain Jewish. It is often pointed out that there is no positive commandment in the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) requiring a Jew to believe in God. “http://www.rossel.net/Basic04.htm”When it comes to belief, the Torah commands that Jews adhere to the laws of the covenant, which means that idolatry (the belief in many gods) is forbidden.” http://www.rossel.net/Basic04.htm(highlighting done by me)　　　
“Reform Judaism affirms the central tenets of Judaism – God, Torah and Israel – even as it acknowledges the diversity of Reform Jewish beliefs and practices. We believe that all human beings are created in the image of God, and that we are God’s partners in improving the world.”(Union for Reform Judaism)
http://urj.org/about/reform/whatisreform/

“Though central to its theology, the reform (progressive) Jewish movement has expressed a wide spectrum of views of God. One finds within the movement both an agnostic humanism and a traditional devotion to God.
For example, the landmarkPittsburgh Platform declared: “We recognize in every religion an attempt to grasp the Infinite, and in every mode, source, or book of revelation held sacred in any religious system the consciousness of the indwelling of God in man. We hold that Judaism presents the highest conception of the God-idea… as the central religious truth of the human race.”"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beliefs_and_practices_in_Progressive_Judaism”Some few Jews are ideologically secular. They may be atheists who do not believe in the existence of a god. Or they may be agnostics, unsure of whether or not God exists. Among religions, Judaism is somewhat unique in that it makes room for both atheists and agnostics to remain Jewish. It is often pointed out that there is no positive commandment in the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) requiring a Jew to believe in God. “http://www.rossel.net/Basic04.htm”When it comes to belief, the Torah commands that Jews adhere to the laws of the covenant, which means that idolatry (the belief in many gods) is forbidden.” http://www.rossel.net/Basic04.htm(highlighting done by me)　　　
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beliefs_and_practices_in_Progressive_Judaism

“Some few Jews are ideologically secular. They may be atheists who do not believe in the existence of a god. Or they may be agnostics, unsure of whether or not God exists. Among religions, Judaism is somewhat unique in that it makes room for both atheists and agnostics to remain Jewish. It is often pointed out that there is no positive commandment in the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) requiring a Jew to believe in God. ”
http://www.rossel.net/Basic04.htm

“When it comes to belief, the Torah commands that Jews adhere to the laws of the covenant, which means that idolatry (the belief in many gods) is forbidden.”
http://www.rossel.net/Basic04.htm
(highlighting done by me)
　
　
　
K girl

How is it that the Hebrews have misunderstood their language for thousands of years and yet you, who admittedly does not know their language, understands it?

Threeburgesses

So, does anyone want to talk about the crux of the issue with this podcast, which is how one can determine truth? If someone can truIy know something? If metaphysical/spiritual truth is knowable? and by what means? I keep bringing it up and it keeps getting ignored. Which is okay, because I am a big boy and I can take it without crying.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Well, candidly, I question that last line – if you were a big boy you would act like one and so far you haven’t.

So if we have a discussion on epistemology – which is what the question is about – will you act like a mature adult interested in mature, civil discussion, and willing to consider things from the other person’s point-of-view and base of evidence or will you just continue in the same vein and style that you’ve been in since you entered the discussion here?

Frankly, if it’s the latter I’m not interested.

Threeburgesses

ok, bye bye

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Thank you for proving my point with that childish snark BTW.

Anonymous

OMG and you’re NOT being childish lately?
Anonymous

I’m sorry Fred, but you need to get over yourself.
Anonymous

I just can’t get over your attitude. You’re unbelievable. You’re a condescending dick in 99% of your comments… you seem to have a case of the Isaac Hayes/Scientology/South Park butthurts…. and you insist on casting aspersions about the character of the people who run Mormon Expression but then run away and jump into your hidey hole any time you’re asked to provide evidence of your claims.

Since you’re obviously so much smarter and mature than the rest of us why don’t you leave us alone and go play on websites that are more “up to your level”?

Boyd K Packer

Fred, without question, you are the harshest, most condescending commenter on here and the only bullying I have seen take place has been FROM you, not the other way around. You have totally unreasonable expectations for the ME community. If a commenter were to behave even half as egregiously as you do on a regular basis, I don’t think you would stand for it and the fact that the ME community has been so kind to you for so long despite your behavior, yet you STILL lash out at them, says a lot about your character. Your primary issue seems to be that people here don’t like theism or Christianity….so what?!?! Why should they? It is totally unreasonable of you to expect that you should be able to state your beliefs without being challenged, especially when you challenge commenters about all sorts of things in the most unkind ways. It is not as if we are coming to your personal website and disagreeing with your beliefs on Christianity, you CHOOSE to come to ME, where you know the ethos leans towards skepticism and atheism, then you CHOOSE to voice your beliefs, then act as if we are doing something wrong for not agreeing with you. ME is under no obligation whatsoever to be pro theism or pro Christianity, so it is unreasonable for you to be critical of the fact that we are not.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Well, that’s good feedback. You’ve made some very good point.

Thank you, I will give it serious consideration.

However, I must say that despite any differences that I may have had with John, Richard, Heather, or even Gunnar on this board I have always appreciated and respected the fact that they used their real names rather than hiding behind an alias.

http://argeiphontes.blogspot.com/ Hermes

You have to live it. You know what happens to you, how you respond in certain situations, what they mean for you. That is all the truth we get.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

ThreeBurgesses you’ve been asking several times now, yet we’re still waiting for an answer to this question in regard to the correct translation and interpretation of the Hebrew word, “Elohim”:

“How is it that the Hebrews have misunderstood their language for thousands of years and yet you, who admittedly does not know their language, understands it?”

The courtesy of an answer would be appreciated. Thanks.

Threeburgesses

Okay, I’m signing up for a Hebrew Language BA right now, I’ll be back in four years and let you know.

K girl

Awesom, knowledge and wisdom are great goals.
Fanson

Sounds like a great plan.

Threeburgesses

No living hebrew scholar knew what was meant in the minds of those prophets that saw into heaven. As soon as you can tell me what was in the mind of the author of genesis, you’ll have an answer. If you read 1 corinthians 2 10-16 cited above, you’ll see that you can only KNOW something by the Holy Ghost and that it is discerned spiritually. Since the Holy Ghost told me that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God. (not a feeling, not emotion, not a burning, not warm tingling) But the voice of the Spirit of God spoke to my core, I believe that Joseph knew what was in the mind of the author of genesis.I have also been forgiven of Jesus. So by your criteria, I’m saved. So stop worrying about me. Go and find someone else who can’t hang with the Spirit of God to indoctrinate.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Then according to the Bible you’re a fool.

Once again – with emphasis this time:
“He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.”
– Proverbs 28:26

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”
– Jeremiah 17:9

And I think that we now know why you reacted so militantly and loudly to Andy’s story: Because it indicts and discredits your entire epistemological system – which the Bible has this to say about:

“…I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him…

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.“
- II Corinthians 3&4,13-15

Further, as mentioned previously, you’re in direct violation of God’s commandment regarding False Prophets in Torah:
“Someday a prophet may come along who is able to perform miracles or tell what will happen in the future. Then the prophet may say, ” Let’s start worshiping some new gods–some gods that we know nothing about.” If the prophet says this, don’t listen! The LORD your God will be watching to find out whether or not you love him with all your heart and soul.
– Deuteronomy 13:1-3 (CEV)

And the system of interpretation that have just described is called “Eisogesis” and is fallacious. This is at odds with the proper system of interpretation called, “Exegesis”. Here’s a short primer:

exegesis: objectivism. To explain what the Scripture says. Greek, ‘to guide out of.” “ex” means “from” or “out of”

eisogesis: subjectivism. Reading into text something that isn’t there at all. Greek. Same root as exegesis with different prefix. “eis” means “into.”
(http://www.interfaith.org/forum/exegesis-vs-eisogesis-184.html ; retrieved 2011-05-11)

Eisogesis is the act of putting meaning into a text where it is not there.
(http://idontknownuthin.com/wiki/index.php/Eisogesis_objection ; retrieved 2011-05-11)

Exegesis is the process of getting “out” (‘ex’) of the text what is truly there in the first place. The opposite to exegesis is eisogesis. This is the process of putting “into” the text something that wasn’t intended by the author. So let’s explore how to do eisogesis (although most people don’t actually need to be instructed on how to do this!).

EISOGESIS
When a preacher has something to say and uses a Scripture text to say it, chances are he/she is about to commit the error of eisogesis. This is actually the wrong starting point for sound preaching.”
(http://www.andrewcorbett.net/leadership/preaching/exegesis01.html ; retrieved 2011-05-11)

And here’s a fascinating powerpoint presentation that a College Professor did on the difference between exegesis and eisegesis: http://www.andrewcorbett.net/leadership/preaching/exegesis01.html ; referenced 2011-05-11

Again:

“Eisegesis often reflects psychological needs”

And that’s what you’re doing ThreeBurgesses – reflecting your own psychological needs INTO the text. It’s not God, it’s YOU (or possibly another source other than God – as II Corinthians 4:15 explicitly states) that’s giving you this “light”.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

And finally your post reminded me of one of my favorite quotes – this one is from a Catholic Mormon Studies Scholar:

“Mormonism is based on the subjective ‘intuition’ of the individual (you’ll ‘feel the truth’ of it, and if you don’t, you’re not open to God…).

It is a remarkably irrational non-Christian religion born of a remarkable man in 19th-century New York. In fact, Mormonism is built on some of the wildest and most outrageous assumptions I’ve ever come across.”
– John Knutsen, Catholic Scholar

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

YOU WROTE
“No living hebrew scholar knew what was meant in the minds of those prophets that saw into heaven.

MY RESPONSE
Sure they did. The reason why things are written down are so that one’s thoughts are recorded for posterity. Your assertion is utterly absurd!

No one sits down to write thinking, “Now let’s see here . . . how can I make this as far away from what I’m thinking as possible? I need to make sure that NO ONE who reads this can figure out what I’m thinking here . . . ”

Yet through magic only YOU and Joseph Smith know EXACTLY what was in their minds? Really?

I had no idea that the author of Genesis was such a bad writer! Thank you for letting us know!
(please note dripping sarcasm)

YOU WROTE
“As soon as you can tell me what was in the mind of the author of genesis, you’ll have an answer.

MY RESPONSE
OK, got your pencil and paper ready? Here we go, write this down:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”

Or if you prefer:
“b·rashith bra aleim ath e·shmim u·ath e·artz”
(that’s the phonetic Hebrew – which, BTW, Joseph Smith also got wrong)

Or if you prefer the transliteration:
“in beginning he-created Elohim the heavens and the earth”

That is what the author of Genesis was thinking.
Thanks for asking.
K girl

Threeburgesses,
　
you claim revelation from the Holy Ghost that Joseph Smith was the Prophet of God. You imply that the Holy Ghost told you that Joseph Smith knew the mind of the author of Genesis. Thus you are implying that Joseph Smith taught that Elohim means a plurality of many Gods and Goddesses. You have provided no support that he taught this. But more importantly… no one else, including it would seem Joseph Smith’s own church, agrees with what you have shared about the meaning of the word Elohim.
　
So Threeburgesses, who are we to believe?
　
You, or everyone else?
　
“It is interesting to note that no less a Mormon authority than James E. Talmage, in his own writings, contradicted Smith’s rendering of the word ‘Elohim. “In form the word is a Hebrew plural noun; but it connotes the plurality of excellence or intensity, rather than distinctively of number. It is expressive of supreme or absolute exaltation and power. Elohim, as understood and used in the restored Church or Jesus Christ, is the name-title of God the Eternal Father. . . .”Talmage, Jesus the Christ, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1962, p. 38. ”
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=332%3Ajoseph-smiths-translation-of-genesis-11&catid=142%3Amormons&Itemid=505

“3. He is named Elohim.

Have another young man read Jesus Christ’s prayer as he was suffering on the cross from Mark 15:34. Again, Jesus Christ was praying to Heavenly Father, whose name is Elohim.

4. He is “God above all Gods.”

Share the following quotation:
“Elohim … is also used as the exalted name-title of God the Eternal Father, a usage that connotes his supremacy and omnipotence, he being God above all Gods” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966], p. 224).”
http://lds.org/manual/aaronic-priesthood-manual-3/lesson-1-the-godhead?lang=eng&query=elohim

“In 1916, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve explained that “Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh.”
They went on to declare that because of this unique relationship with God the Father, “Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority.”
http://lds.org/ensign/1989/12/i-have-a-question/i-have-a-question?lang=eng&query=elohim

“Explain that the name of God the Father is Elohim and he is the father of the spirits of all mankind. He is also the father of Jesus Christ in the flesh.
Read the following statement by the First Presidency: “God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title ‘Elohim,’ is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race” (“The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve,” Improvement Era, Aug. 1916, p934).”
http://lds.org/manual/young-women-manual-3/lesson-1-god-the-father?lang=eng&query=elohim

“Possibly the best known use of El is in Elohim, a plural form signifying the “almighty” or “omnipotent,” a name applied to the Father.”
http://lds.org/scriptures/bd/el?lang=eng&query=elohim

“Through time’s immortal endless stay
In love he guides our way.
Beyond the realms of heaven’s beam,
Our great God, Elohim.
Hosanna to his holy name—
Our fathers’ God is still the same. ”
http://lds.org/ensign/1987/11/keys-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng&query=elohim

Anonymous

I just want to take a moment to thank Andy for coming to Mormon Expression to share his story. I think it was brave of him to be open about his story in our skeptical forum. I think he has a very compelling story about how Mormonism impacted his life and I’m glad that he’s found a home in Christianity. While I don’t accept the claims of Christianity myself, I respect anyone who evaluates their life and moves in a path that helps them develop and find peace.

I’d also like to thank all of the Christian folks who must have caught wind of Andy’s appearance and who stopped by to participate in our lively debating. I hope you’ll consider listening to other episodes in the future. I’m hoping to continue having Evangelicals on from time to time. So if the other stories don’t interest you, maybe you can keep an eye out for those.

http://argeiphontes.blogspot.com/ Hermes

Thanks for saying that, Heather. I concur.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Well Heather, in response to your litany of comments tonight, I’m sorry that you feel that way.

I was actually thinking about initiating a dialog with you in private since I thought that this podcast and subsequent discussion showed a positive move on your part – really good initiative. I was also quite pleased and thought it a step in the right direction when you deleted some prior posts that were an attempt to publicly shame and embarrass me earlier this week. All good stuff.

I was, in fact, impressed to the point that I thought that maybe my prior thoughts and feelings needed to be reassessed. However, after your comments tonight – which is essentially a repeat of the same type of behavior that I saw in the deleted posts – I’m not so sure.

I’ll give it more time and see what happens going forward.

Thanks.

And, BTW, great job on this podcast – over a 100 comments with no end in sight. That’s amazing – great job on this one Heather!

http://www.richardharris.no Richard of Norway

Dude, I’m pretty damn high and mighty myself, so I’m not trying to pretend a higher morality than you. I can be equally condescending, if not much more so. However…

You really need to get over yourself and come to grips with the reality that you are no better than the people you are so fond of putting in their place. You love to dish it out, but when the dishing turns your way you cry fowl, claim superiority, take offense and run for the hills.

We are all human here and neither Heather nor John are any more representative of Mormon Expression than anybody else, including Mike Tannehill, Brandt Malone, Glenn Ostlund or yourself. Or even me for that matter. So quit pretending the “organization” here is against you and other believers.

Either take what you dish out or find another venue for your patronizing rants.

I know you can be humble, thoughtful, kind and generous with the best of them. I’m looking forward to that side returning. Or at least for a bit more fairness and less “gotcha” style posting. We’re all friends here after all. At least, I like to think so.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Well that’s actually some pretty good feedback Richard. Thank you.

However, I’m going to respectfully and completely disagree with this statement: “neither Heather nor John are any more representative of Mormon Expression than anybody else” Nonsense, John Larsen is the founder/owner, the principal contributor and keeps the whole enterprise going. Heather is the second biggest contributor next to John and clearly a major influencer. You are the webmaster. To me those roles carry a weight and a responsibility that goes beyond what I, Mike Tannehill, Brandt Malone, or Glenn Ostlund bring to the table.

Without you three Mormon Expressions either fades into the woodwork or disappears. We’re guests, you’re not.

I’m also going to respectfully disagree with, ”So quit pretending the “organization” here is against you and other believers.” Well all I know is that I can’t seem to get any of my Christians peers to come here, stay here, and better yet contribute.

And a big part of it is the bullying that they get from the atheists on Mormon Expression – the most common forms being “piling on”, insults, mocking, and name calling (“dick” and ”douche bag” apparently being the popular favorites at the moment).

And when the principals join in it sends a strong message that, “Nothing but atheism is welcome on this board. Forget about being consistent with your worldview – you have to be consistent with atheism if you want to stay. Thanks for trying to play with us but frankly everyone but atheists suck! So either comply or leave. Thanks!”

And yes, I thought that we were friends too until you and John started acting like something else. Correcting someone in public with evidence in a respectful way is one thing, name calling in an obvious attempt to belittle, marginalize, and publicly shame the person is something altogether different.

Ironically, until her recent posts Heather was the exception to the rule. She was the one principal who seemed to be trying to maintain a neutral stance and her posts were generally respectful in tone and content. She would even attempt to moderate and neutralize the negativity from time-to-time. My original editorials comments were NOT – I repeat NOT – directed at her or her work.

However, when I put, what was going to be a temporary, Facebook block on her, you, and John so I could get this all sorted out in private without being disturbed I got “more of the same” from her too. In retrospect blocking Heather on Facebook was a mistake but I can’t unring that bell and, frankly, given what’s transpired I’m not sure that I want to now.

So I’m not quite sure where to go with this.

Doing the Andy Poland podcast and letting us have the good discussion that we’d been having I was filled with hope for Mormon Expression again – but that was all undone last night.

So here we are again – right back where we started. I would like to see Mormon Expression become more than yet another website by Ex-Mormons atheists for Ex-Mormon atheists but, sadly, that seems to be where the momentum is – which is a real shame.

And for the record, this isn’t just my opinion – I’m just saying in public what many others are saying in private. I just suffer from the same disease that you, Heather, and John do: I’m outspoken.

http://www.richardharris.no Richard of Norway

Frankly I don’t give a flying fuck what people say in pblicnorin private. I know ME quite well and am quite confident it isn’t the way you describe. Everybody is allowed an equal voice and is equally open to praise or ridicule. Fuck ‘em if they can’t take it.

As of today, Glenn, Tom, Mike and Zilpha have contributed to more podcasts than Heather. You have contributed to far more content than I. Perhaps John is the main contributor but surely the rest of us are equally represented? You seem to love to pretend to be picked on but really, I see much more of you dishing it out than taking any heat. I really think you’re losing site of things.

You can block or unfriend me. I don’t care much. I like you but won’t be bothered by it and understand why you might do it. I have a few Christian friends, a few Mormon friends, and a few non-theists. I think a close to equal amount of each. People’s beliefs don’t bother me until they start pretending superiority for them. Lately, you have been doing that quite a bit and have gotten some heat from it from some of us who love you and know you’re better than that.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Well OK then.

Well I’ve had my say and you’ve had yours. Are we done now?

(and BTW, I still think that you rock too – despite our differences. IMO, this too shall pass)

James E Talmage

I am an outsider to this discussion and it is probably not my place to interject, but I have been extremely interested in and entertained by the back and forth between Fred and others and would like to add my observations, and feel having the thoughts of a non-involved party may be helpful.
@Fred , I realize it must be difficult to be in your position, trying to defend theism and Christianity to a group of ex-mormons, but why do you feel your beliefs should be given special treatment and no others? You have no problem with criticizing Mormons and Mormonism in as harsh of language as possible even to the point of occasional cruelty, yet if someone makes even a minor criticism of theism, yourself or Christianity you fly off the handle, make personal accusations and claim you are being bullied. I do not know you well enough to make any judgements about your actual character, but your behavior on this board recently reflects a narcissistic personality. I think far more harm is being done to people’s perceptions of Christianity by your behavior than any criticism made here. If you want us to respect your beliefs, you should behave in a respectable way, which recently you have not been doing. I know it is hard to feel picked on, but honestly I do not believe you have been. Your tone is almost always confrontational and combative, even on small issues, yet you demand complete deference and respect to everything you say or do. This is not fair Fred. You have been treated just as you have treated others…in fact, you have generally been treated MUCH better than you have treated others. If you want people to interact with you in a certain way, then it behooves you to treat others in the same manner for as Matthew 7:2 says ‘For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.’ Not having had any participation in these discussions I feel I can speak from a better position of objectivity than those who have been directly involved and I feel that If we judge you by the same standards you have judged the Mormon Expressions community, you stand the most guilty, (and in turn, our perception of Christians and Christianity in general is also tarnished.)

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

Well again, that’s good feedback. Thank you.

However, as I noted on another post a few minutes ago, I appreciate and respect the fact that John, Heather, and Richard have never hidden behind aliases. That bespeaks strong character and integrity on their part.

Never-the-less, you’ve given me some things to ponder and I thank you for it.

Anonymous

Heather,

Wonderful job with this and all of your interviews so far. You’ve got a real talent for this. ME voices is a terrific complement to ME.

Thanks,

JT

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

100% agreement. This was a great idea Heather – well done.

Anonymous

I liked this interview, although I was somewhat frustrated by the accusation that Mormons don’t subscribe to “Biblical” Christianity, as if there only one established version. It seems to me that Andy is just as ensconced in a one true Christianity kind of world view, as if such a thing is demonstrable just from the Bible alone. For every scripture Andy mentions that seemingly takes apart Mormonism, we scripture chasers can come up with any number of ones to prop it back up again. Evangelism over Mormonism? An eternal punishment in hell for someone who has lived a good life, been kind to others, but just doesn’t buy the reality of the Bible’s message? No, Mormonism is much better than that.

http://www.facebook.com/fred.w.anson Fred W. Anson

YOU WROTE
“An eternal punishment in hell for someone who has lived a good life, been kind to others, but just doesn’t buy the reality of the Bible’s message? No, Mormonism is much better than that.”

MY RESPONSE
Kevin, we Evangelicals hear that a lot but LdS Scripture seems to give the same picture of hell that 19th Century Protestantism did. For example, the following was compiled by Bob Betts of Concerned Christians:

The following Book of Mormon passages speak of the eternality of hell and describe it in detail, while the Mormon religion claims that hell is not eternal (“Mormon Doctrine” by McConkie, LDS Bible Dictionary – see “hell,” and D&C 19:4-12).

1 Nephi 14:3 And that great pit, which hath been digged for them by that great and abominable church, which was founded by the devil and his children, that he might lead away the souls of men down to hell — yea, that great pit which hath been digged for the destruction of men shall be filled by those who digged it, unto their utter destruction, saith the Lamb of God; not the destruction of the soul, save it be the casting of it into that hell which hath no end.

1 Nephi 15:29,35
29 And I said unto them that it was a representation of that awful hell, which the angel said unto me was prepared for the wicked.
35 And there is a place prepared, yea, even that awful hell of which I have spoken, and the devil is the preparator of it; wherefore the final state of the souls of men is to dwell in the kingdom of God, or to be cast out because of that justice of which I have spoken.

2 Nephi 2:29 And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.

2 Nephi 9:12,19
12 And this death of which I have spoken, which is the spiritual death, shall deliver up its dead; which spiritual death is hell; wherefore, death and hell must deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel.

19 O the greatness of the mercy of our God, the Holy One of Israel! For he delivereth his saints from that awful monster the devil, and death, and hell, and that lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment.

2 Nephi 28:19-23
19 For the kingdom of the devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance, or the devil will grasp them with his everlasting chains, and they be stirred up to anger, and perish;

20 For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men, and stir them up to anger against that which is good.

21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well — and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.

22 And behold, others he [the devil] flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.

23 Yea, they are grasped with death, and hell; and death, and hell, and the devil, and all that have been seized therewith must stand before the throne of God, and be judged according to their works, from whence they must go into the place prepared for them, even a lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment.

Jacob 7:18 And he spake plainly unto them, that he had been deceived by the power of the devil. And he spake of hell, and of eternity, and of eternal punishment.

Alma 5
6 And now behold, I say unto you, my brethren, you that belong to this church, have you sufficiently retained in remembrance the captivity of your fathers? Yea, and have you sufficiently retained in remembrance his mercy and long-suffering towards them? And moreover, have ye sufficiently retained in remembrance that he has delivered their souls from hell?

7 Behold, he changed their hearts; yea, he awakened them out of a deep sleep, and they awoke unto God. Behold, they were in the midst of darkness; nevertheless, their souls were illuminated by the light of the everlasting word; yea, they were encircled about by the bands of death, and the chains of hell, and an everlasting destruction did await them.

8 And now I ask of you, my brethren, were they destroyed? Behold, I say unto you, Nay, they were not.

9 And again I ask, were the bands of death broken, and the chains of hell which encircled them about, were they loosed? I say unto you, Yea, they were loosed, and their souls did expand, and they did sing redeeming love. And I say unto you that they are saved.

10 And now I ask of you on what conditions are they saved? Yea, what grounds had they to hope for salvation? What is the cause of their being loosed from the bands of death, yea, and also the chains of hell?

Helaman 6:28
And also it is that same being who put it into the hearts of the people to build a tower sufficiently high that they might get to heaven. And it was that same being who led on the people who came from that tower into this land; who spread the works of darkness and abominations over all the face of the land, until he dragged the people down to an entire destruction, and to an everlasting hell.

Moroni 8:13
Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.

(NOTE: the following verses do not speak of the actual eternality of hell. They just lend additional proof that “hell” should be a taught Mormon doctrine, since [the alleged prophet] “Mormon” formed a book that speaks so extensively about the subject. This is not an exhaustive list.)

2 Nephi 1:15
But behold, the Lord hath redeemed my soul from hell; I have beheld his glory, and I am encircled about eternally in the arms of his love.

2 Nephi 24:15
Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

2 Nephi 26:10
And when these things have passed away a speedy destruction cometh unto my people; for, notwithstanding the pains of my soul, I have seen it; wherefore, I know that it shall come to pass; and they sell themselves for naught; for, for the reward of their pride and their foolishness they shall reap destruction; for because they yield unto the devil and choose works of darkness rather than light, therefore they must go down to hell.

2 Nephi 28:15
O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!

2 Nephi 33:6
I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell.

Jacob 3:11
O my brethren, hearken unto my words; arouse the faculties of your souls; shake yourselves that ye may awake from the slumber of death; and loose yourselves from the pains of hell that ye may not become angels to the devil, to be cast into that lake of fire and brimstone which is the second death.

Alma 13:30
And may the Lord grant unto you repentance, that ye may not bring down his wrath upon you, that ye may not be bound down by the chains of hell, that ye may not suffer the second death.

Alma 14:6
And it came to pass that Zeezrom was astonished at the words which had been spoken; and he also knew concerning the blindness of the minds, which he had caused among the people by his lying words; and his soul began to be harrowed up under a consciousness of his own guilt; yea, he began to be encircled about by the pains of hell.

Alma 26:13-14
13 Behold, how many thousands of our brethren has he loosed from the pains of hell; and they are brought to sing redeeming love, and this because of the power of his word which is in us, therefore have we not great reason to rejoice?
14 Yea, we have reason to praise him forever, for he is the Most High God, and has loosed our brethren from the chains of hell.

3 Nephi 12:22, 30
22 But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment. And whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
30 For it is better that ye should deny yourselves of these things, wherein ye will take up your across, than that ye should be cast into hell.

(NOTE: here are a couple of non-Book of Mormon bonuses, where Joseph Smith allegedly received revelations regarding “hell.” But, again, not speaking specifically to the etrnality of hell, as do the seven Book of Mormon passages at the beginning of this post.)

D&C 10:26
And thus he flattereth them, and leadeth them along until he draggeth their souls down to hell; and thus he causeth them to catch themselves in their own snare.

D&C 76:84
These are they who are thrust down to hell.

(source http://www.concernedchristians.com/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=42&func=view&catid=505&id=84142 )

The discrepancy between what Mormons say and LdS Scripture says is puzzling to us.

Farmdog47

In 1984, less than a block from where I was raising my family in a quiet American Fork neighborhood, my neighbor and her infant daughter were found murdered. We later learned that Brenda Lafferty and her little daughter were murdered because God had revealed to Ron and Dan Lafferty that this was necessary to “further the work in His kingdom”. I can’t help but believe Ron Lafferty was just as convinced as Mr. Poland that the Almighty had revealed his will.
One day I hope it can be “revealed” to all of us that these random flashing brain impulses might be recognized for what they are and not messages from heaven. If there is one thing I might thank God for, it is that in his infinite wisdom, he allowed this country to be a “secular nation” with a “secular police force” to protect some of us from His “righteous revelations”.
Anonymous

Here is why this interview was disappointing to me.

My expectations were way off. As he told hisstory, I kept hoping he would conclude that he realized that he was not receiving revelation but that he was simply horny, and kind of a jerk. Because that is what usually causes men to have sex with other women while their wife is pregnant. Instead, he blamed his actions on the devil. Can he not accept that what he did was his own decision based on his own impulses? For me, he lost all credibility at this point in the interview.

I would be very cautious of this person, whether or not he is a liar. He is suffering from mental illness and does not seem to have sought out medical help. He has switched teams, and maybe he feels saved now, but he’s the same guy that blindly followed the voices in his head.
Henning Müller

I was stunned by Andy’s story. Thank you, Andy, for not holding back and for speaking up. Particularly since spiritual feelings and powerful spiritual inspiration and thoughts make up a large portion of what I have considered to be my testimony. My own world shatters at the moment.

6: Andy Poland Leaves Mormonism

Support Mormon Expression

Subscribe

Be a part of the podcast!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Pages