Welcome to TruthTalkLive.com!

Today’s Issues, From a Biblical Perspective!

The Mormon Mirage

Posted by truthtalklive on February 4, 2008

Today’s guest is Hank Hanegraaff, The Bible Answerman.

Today’s topic discusses Hank’s new book The Mormon Mirage

 p341-large.jpg
click to enlarge

For more information about him or his ministry visit www.equip.org

AddThis Button 


Advertisements

52 Responses to “The Mormon Mirage”

  1. Inoffensively Named Willie said

    Mr. Hanegraaf is not a very wise to choice to represent TTL. He has a long history of financial misdeeds.
    Just one allegation

  2. Brad said

    I think your link sums it up best: “just one allegation.” Mr. Hanegraaf was not found guilty, and settled out of court with the complainant, neither acknowledging any wrong-doing.

    Do you have any “doctrinal” issues to discuss, which you disagree with?

  3. Fred said

    Hannegraaf critiques Mormonism.

    Noah’s Ark versus Golden Plates.

    Young Earth versus Eden in Missouri.

    Which is more pretentious?

  4. Willie said

    Sorry. I meant “just
    one of many.”

  5. Brad said

    Willie,

    Do you have any doctrinal issues to discuss, concerning Hanegraaf or Mormonism, which you disagree with?

  6. stu said

    Fred,

    Just visit the grand canyon for evidence of the flood, and visit any culture in the world, b/c they ALL have a flood story in their history—
    The Bible is 100% accurate archeologically , historically, scientfically , and in all other ways—
    Mormon scholors are on record admitting the challenges the book of Mormon has in these areas.
    What keeps you Fred, from embracing Christ and his Word?

  7. Chris C. said

    The grand canyon is roughly 7 million years old (about 6,994,000 years older than the earth according to Bishop Ussher’s genealogical dating of the earth). It reveals 2 billion years of geologic time from the Vishnu Schist to recent volcanic ash in the top level Kaibab Limestone. If you have any reason (other than a literal interpretation of Genesis) to believe these numbers and time figures are incorrect, I’d be interested to hear. I would be surprised as well, as we have had over 150 years of geologic research, since William Paley published his groundbreaking (no pun intended) book, demonstrating the 4.5 billion year age of the earth.

  8. Fred said

    Stu, thanks for illustrating my point (see post #3). I am a Christian, did you not know? I don’t embrace Young Earth Creationism for obvious reasons.

    Tell us why do you think that virtually every Science department in every University in the world disagrees with you?

    Is it a vast conspiracy?

    best,
    Fred

  9. Amanda said

    An entire show could be done on the “evidences” of the Book of Mormon even though the archaelogical evidence may not be conclusive at present. There is plenty to look at regardless, even in that area. Stu amazes me–I had no idea his belief in Christ was so closely tied to the exernal evidences. Whatever happened to being “born again”?

    The conclusive evidence for Christianity should always be the witness of the Holy Ghost and the internal evidence which can be proven through a life lived upon the principles involved.

    There is no “challenge” regarding Book of Mormon evidences that will not be overcome in the future. I, for one, will be all the more exultant to stand before God and say, “I believed on the words of Thy prophets and apostles, both in the Bible and the Book of Mormon BEFORE there was conclusive evidence archeologically. Thank you for the witness and gift of the Holy Ghost.”

  10. Fred said

    “An entire show could be done on the “evidences” of the Book of Mormon even though the archaeological evidence may not be conclusive at present.” – Amanda

    An excellent suggestion!

  11. Brad said

    An entire show could be done on the “evidences” of the Book of Mormon even though the archaelogical evidence may not be conclusive at present.

    What other “evidences” are there, Amanda? It wouldn’t take a whole show – it wouldn’t even take a whole segment (and we know how short those are on the show 🙂 )

    There is plenty to look at regardless, even in that area. Stu amazes me–I had no idea his belief in Christ was so closely tied to the exernal evidences. Whatever happened to being “born again”?

    Stu’s comment doesn’t say anything about his belief, or anyone else’s, being “closely tied” to the external evidence. The external evidence is only FURTHER proof that backs up our belief by faith.

    The conclusive evidence for Christianity should always be the witness of the Holy Ghost and the internal evidence which can be proven through a life lived upon the principles involved.

    Wrong. Faith is being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see. Without faith, it is impossible to believe God. Where does faith come from? Faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the Word of God. Mormons rely too much on “the witness of the Holy Ghost”, b/c that is the standard comeback answer for all Mormon questions that can’t be answered, “the Holy Ghost witnessed to me of the truthfulness of ________”. How do you KNOW it is the Holy Ghost, and not deception from Satan (which it is)? Answer – you don’t.

    There is no “challenge” regarding Book of Mormon evidences that will not be overcome in the future.

    Boy, ain’t that the truth – but by the time it’s been “overcome”, it will be too late, according to Hebrews 9:27.

    I, for one, will be all the more exultant to stand before God and say, “I believed on the words of Thy prophets and apostles, both in the Bible and the Book of Mormon BEFORE there was conclusive evidence archeologically. Thank you for the witness and gift of the Holy Ghost.”

    And He will say, “Depart from me, I never knew you.”

  12. Brad said

    “An entire show could be done on the “evidences” of the Book of Mormon even though the archaeological evidence may not be conclusive at present.” – Amanda

    An excellent suggestion!

    I agree – an excellent suggestion. Amanda, would you care to host such a show, and provide all the “evidences” you have. Oh wait, you’ve been asked that before…

  13. stu said

    Amanda and Brad,
    I’ll moderate a friendly discussion between the two of you—–we can agree on the ground rules ahead of time right here.
    thoughts?

    Chris C—would like to talk more about this evolution thing. Fascinating thing happenned to my SS teacher. he grabbed a unique rock from an area near a volcanoe that had been formed in a recent eruption and was eye-witnessed to be no older than a couple of years old. His team sent it off to a science lab with no info, and they sent it back after applying carbon-dating and other such methods you cited—it was 30+ MILLION years old—–WOW—-how do you and Fred explain this one?

  14. stu said

    Fred,
    I’m wonderng how you reconcile being a Christian with not believing God’s Word?
    I’m not asking if you’re a ‘right-wing’ fundy, just the Bible—do you believe it to be True? Like Proverbs 30:5-6 says
    Doesn’t The Bible define what a Christian is?

  15. Fred said

    Carbon dating rocks? I smell baloney.

    Stu, if I answer your questions, will you have the courtesy to return the favor? You asked:

    Q: “I’m wonderng how you reconcile being a Christian with not believing God’s Word?”

    A: I am a Christian for the same reasons most other Christians are, because that is how we were raised and not because I pretend to believe in something that you say that isn’t real.

    Q: “I’m not asking if you’re a ‘right-wing’ fundy, just the Bible—do you believe it to be True?”

    A: A lot of the Bible is hard to believe for any of us. I don’t pretend to believe the unbelievable parts.

    Q: “Doesn’t The Bible define what a Christian is?”

    A: Yes, I think that it may. I reserve the right to disagree with your definition of what a Christian is.

    Now, it’s your turn:

    You insist that the earth is only a few thousand years old when the various fields of science unambiguously disagree with you. Is it a vast conspiracy? Are they deliberately misleading us? Or is it a Divine strategy to confound the wise by making the universe appear to be old when it is not?

    best,
    Fred

    P.S. Here’s a link to a USGS page that explains a little bit about dating volcanic deposits:

    http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/About/What/Assess/Dating.html

  16. Chris C. said

    Carbon dating, constricted by the halflife of carbon, only measures back about 60,000 years. Since his results seem so revolutionary, were they published in any journals?

  17. Willie said

    Yes I’d like to echo Chris C’s question. Carbon dating is not done on rocks. Please provide full documentation.

  18. John said

    Hiiiiii Stu!
    I’m here to help complicate things for you[smile].
    Not every culture around the world has a flood story.For those that do, consider that in primitive times, river banks and sea sides made the best, most popular dwelling sites[for obvious reasons], which would sometimes flood with disastrous results.And this was the “whole world” to many of these people.
    You also fail to realize that these flood myths all occur at different points of history for different reasons.
    And heres a real quandary for you, since all of these other flood myths are coming from Pagan religions, or at least the “wrong religions”[because they aren’t Christian or at least of the Middle East], why would you use ANYTHING out of these alternative religions and cultures to back up your theology?
    Because you brand EVERYTHING ELSE about them as false.Why wouldn’t that also apply to their flood accounts? Your thoughts on this?
    We can talk some more about this, and other things, if you wish.I will be kind[grin].

  19. Mike S said

    I think the most important statement to be claimed is not when or how He created, but THAT He created. That is what the Bible claims clearly. Too much worrying about how and when in Christian circles in my opinion. Let’s allow Science to reveal the Glory of God and How He created! That’s what is great about science!!

  20. Chris C. said

    Thats the thing about science. It is unconcerned with your god or any others. Science is necessarily agnostic with respect to that ultimate queston.

  21. John said

    As well it should be, or else it runs the risk of becoming biased.Like the goings ons at Ken Ham’s Creation Science Institute, for example.
    A scientist must try to remain impartial, despite his/her theological or atheistic convictions.

  22. Amanda said

    The “challenges” to proving archeological evidence regarding the Book of Mormon are overcome spiritually one truth seeker’s heart at a time; but the physical evidences will eventually come. Such study is in its infancy since the BOM is a latter-day event and cannot compete with the age of the Bible and the time and commitment that has been given finding such evidence. I am amazed at what has been found, however.

    And if you were going to do a show about this, don’t you think it would make more sense to get someone to host it that was at least a “sort of” expert on the subject. My passion and specialty is doctrine and Church history and personal testimony, and we’ve been down this trail before.

    Spiritually speaking, though, I would only say: “_____(fill in the blank), because thou hast seen…,thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, an dyet have believed.”
    Physical evidence is nice, but that’s not where the man of God spends his time when discussing the things of the Spirit.

    Brad, you well demonstrate the difference between our faiths. The things of the spirit are “foolishness” (John 14:17, John 3:8, John 14:26)to a certain audience. (It saddens me that this particular audience is “Christian.”)

    1 Cor.2:10-16…
    “But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 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.
    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. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 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. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is juded of no man. For who hath known the nind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.”

    Anyone who believes and truly has faith can have the mind of Christ but only through the Holy Ghost.

  23. John said

    I guess we were all starting to get a little off topic….although I would like Stu to respond to the questions of Willie, Chris C., and myself sometime soon.

  24. Anonymous said

    Fred’s, too.

  25. willie willie said

    hey john I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.

  26. Brad said

    Amanda,

    Your reply is just what I figured it would be – an unwillingness to defend your faith publicly, where the rubber really meets the road. Any person unwilling to do that, I don’t put a lot of credibility in what they say, b/c they’re hiding behind something.

    The Holy Spirit does reveal truth, but that revealed truth is never in conflict with what the Bible says. Anything revealed that is in contrast to what the Bible says, hasn’t been revealed by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, what is revealed to Mormons by what they “think” is the Holy Spirit, is actually no truth at all.

  27. F. L. A. said

    “Your reply is just what I figured it would be- an unwillingness to defend your faith publicly, where the rubber really meets the road. Any person unwilling to do that, I don’t put a lot of credibility in what they say, because they’re hiding behind something.”

    HMMMM. REMEMBER WHEN YOU REFUSED AN OFFER TO DEBATE WITH JOHN ON A SHOW?

    TELL ME, WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON STU NOT RESPONDING TO OUR QUESTIONS ON THIS SITE?

  28. Brad said

    I don’t remember it specifically, but I think I remember declining. If I recall saying, however, my issue with John is that everything was so abstract, and there was no real “point” to much of what he said, that there wasn’t anything to debate about. Amanda, on the other hand, and Mormonism, at least provide a solid basis upon which to debate, b/c there are standard beliefs that can be debated, not the abstract rumblings of John. Big difference. There’s nothing TO debate with John.

    My opinion is that Stu might be busy, and doesn’t have the time to respond, though I don’t know that to be true for sure. I can’t really speak for Stu. I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if he found it a waste of time.

  29. Willie W. said

    I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if he found it a waste of time.

    The guy claims he has access to evidence that overturns the findings of almost all of modern science, but providing proof is a waste of time. Typical.

  30. F. L. A. said

    I REMEMBER HOW IT WAS.YOU’LL NEVER KNOW ABOUT THE HYPOTHETICAL DEBATE WITH JOHN BECAUSE
    A: WE NEVER LEARNED WHAT THE TOPIC OF DEBATE WOULD BE, AND…
    B: YOU NEVER EVEN TRIED.

    AS FOR YOUR THOUGHTS ON STU, IF HE DID FIND IT A WASTE OF TIME, THEN WHY EVEN BRING THE TOPICS UP IN THE FIRST PLACE?
    METHINKS THAT HE QUICKLY FOUND HIMSELF TREADING IN DEEP, SHARK INFESTED WATER.

  31. John said

    Hey Brad, “Interview with a Wiccan” under Apologetics, post#127.
    You’re still one of my favorite characters. I wonder,do you still pray for me?

  32. Brad said

    Willie, remember, I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF Stu might think that – I didn’t say for sure that was the case, and also said I can’t speak for Stu. So be careful not to put words or thoughts out there that aren’t accurate.

  33. Brad said

    F.L.A.,

    I stick by what I say with John, in regards to a debate. Pointless, b/c he has abstract beliefs, and you can’t debate the abstract, by its nature.

    Again, I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF Stu thought that, not that I knew for sure he DID think it. He may just be very busy, right? I doubt Stu is afraid of the “shark-infested water”, though. What you see as shark-infested water, Christians see as a wading pool with goldfish.

    John,

    I still pray for you, as I pray for all those who have not yet realized Christ as their Savior (so you’re included in that group). Prayer is the most effective tool that Christians have, and I use it often.

  34. amanda said

    Brad,

    let me be blunt: I feel it is just wrong to “debate” the gospel of Jesus Christ. If one has the gospel, it should speak for itself when taught in truth. If someone is seeking truth about Christ and His latter-day work, I am happy to oblige in the process. Mike isn’t even seeking, and I’m happy to engage him in dialogue. Why would I want to address any hostile audience who just wants to argue? Much injustice can be done by “arguing” over what the Bible says (“wresting the scriptures” in Bible talk), and false ideas can be left that could easily be omitted if one goes about the proper way of learning truth–reading the Bible AND the Book of Mormon, asking questions of Mormons, visiting the Church, going to http://www.LDS.org or Mormon.com. Arguing and debating is a waste of time, and nothing is accomplished, as you and I have proven several times on this website. Like Huckabee, you would throw out “cheap shots” and sensational topics that would take the whole hour (without commercials, even!) to straighten out, and no one would be the wiser about the actual gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Presentations, teaching opportunities and honest discussions about our beliefs, public or private, I love to participate in, but debating is not required of a true Christian. There are questions asked to promote understanding, and there are questions asked to “bait” and lead and provoke, usually with the intent to “prove” or to “disprove” something . You master in the latter. You would only be happy in a win/lose situation, and there is danger that an audience would not hear enough truth or actual teaching to discern which IS, in the realm of truth, winning or losing. Some may be willing to “plant in such unfertile soil,” and God bless them if hey feel ispried to do so.

    Your point about “conflicts” with the Bible sounds very logical, but as I’ve told you before, there ARE no conflicts between my faith and the Bible when one translates the Bible accurately. Can one translate the Bible accurately without the help of the Holy Ghost? Definitely not. IN fact, God thought we needed some help to do so after watching man flounder around and fight over their personal and group interpretations (something you do well) until in His perfect timing, He sent something powerful enough to put an end to all of the fighting and contention and false doctrine. The Book of Mormon and the Bible “grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among …(thy descendants), and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.” (2 Nephi 3:12)

    This, He says through his prophet after saying, “A seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give power to bing forth my word unto the seed of thy loins–and not to the bringing forth my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word (The Bible) which shall have already gone forth among them.”

    These are all the words of the Lord to Joseph of Egypt as passed down to a prophet who was led to the ancient Americas. Odd that when Joseph Smith translated these words,he was quite young, and there was no evidence that any of this would come to pass. 13 million of us today can bear witness that these bold words have been fulfilled. My life is a testimony of their truthfulness, as is the life of any “Mormon” who has been truly converted to Christ (in more than just intellect) and the truthfulness of the Restoration.

    Your taunts have been responded to before in honesty on my part. An anti-Mormon radio station does not cater to a public who is looking to understand “Mormonism”. If it did, there would be no “opposing” presence there to “debate” and misrepresent, using for their curriculum the literature of distortion and preconceived judgment instead of talking honestly about what the Book of Mormon says and what the Church actually teaches. I rest my case upon what you have put forth here on the blog. Nor would such a radio station have anti-Mormon commercials airing each day.

    The thing I want to hide from–and hide the public from– is contention, accusation, inflamatory discussion which leads to an impass and a poisoning of the truth. Such an arrogant exchange would add to the misunderstandings that already exist about the Church. My goal is for the public to feel the Spirit of Christ at work in words spoken from true teachings and given in an honest exchange with pure intent. That could never happen under the guise of a “debate.” While one may reflect the similitude of Christ’s humility while “under fire,” still …at best it could only be called a “Christ-like defense” instead of a learning experience about the Chruch. I reserve my efforts for the latter, and even then, we have proper protocol.

    If I were to share the gospel with my best nonmember friend, I would ask her to take the missionary discussions, and I would ask if I could be present at them to help answer questions or to share my testimony about a particular truth. I would not take it upon myself to teach her all of the necessary basics of the gospel from scratch by myself. I would also take her to church and to gospel doctrine classes to see that she was exposed to teachings done in order and by teacers who has prepared themselves by faith, study and inspiration to teach–in which case, the visitor could afterwards take the message home and further her scriptural knowledge about it through the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

    The Lord’s house is a house of order, and He has set up a standard by which all may gain the same proper knowledge through study and through faith. Always, always, one is asked to pray about what is said and read and to continue this process until they receive a discernable answer from God. If that answer is accompanied by the power of the Holy Ghost, it will provide a foundation of rock upon which to build gospel knowledge that will never be shaken except through willful sin or through neglect.

  35. Willie said

    I love watching crazy people argue over which one is the right kind of crazy.

  36. Mike S said

    Primping again are you Willie? :))

  37. Brad said

    Amanda,

    Let me be blunt – Mormonism is NOT Christianity.

    Let me be blunt – Mormonism does NOT worship the same Jesus that Christianity does.

    Let me be blunt – Mormonism DOES teach a works-based salvation, despite what you say.

    Let me be blunt – Mormonism is NOT from God, but from man.

    Let be be REALLY blunt – if you follow the teachings of Mormonism, you will NOT go to heaven, b/c its beliefs DO NOT coincide with the Bible.

    All of Amanda’s Mormon nonsense aside, I want to make sure that any readers or listeners who are unsure about Mormonism, investigate it. Look at how it lines up with a proper interpretation of Scripture. Look at the many questions and lack of evidences that even Mormon scholars can’t answer. Look at the inconsistencies and changes over the years, from this “continuing revelation.” Compare all that to the plain truth of the Bible, and see what you come up with. Jesus Christ was our Savior, we have been left with all the truth in the world that we need with the Holy Bible, and the Holy Spirit to be our conscience and guide and comforter while on this Earth. The Bible speaks of NO NEED for continuing revelation – everything needed for salvation, all the principles, are right in the Bible, plain as day.

    Don’t believe it folks – make sure you look right through the smoke.

  38. WW said

    I love how the fundies never get very cranked up over logical, reasonable challenges to their faith. It’s always somebody ELSE’S silly beliefs that get them going. Like the furor over that Da Vinci code nonsense. I think it’s an interesting psychodrama that happens when they unconsciously realize their arguments are just weak as any Mormon’s or Muslim’s or Hare Krishna’s.

  39. John said

    As to your response for me in post#33, that’s my boy[smile, eyes rolling].

  40. Fred said

    WW (#38), bravo, old chap!

  41. Brad said

    WW,

    There are no logical, reasonable challenges to Christianity. Nothing else holds up. Although the scientists, Wiccans, new agers, etc… would believe otherwise, it just isn’t the case, when viewed in light of the Bible. So yes, it is always someone else’s silly beliefs that get us going, b/c those beliefs are wrong, according to the Bible. And believe me, I know that the case for Christianity is not weak at all, but I do agree with you that the Mormons, Muslims, etc… have weak, and truly non-existent, cases.

    Fred,

    The only thing I find sad about your comments are that you purport to be a Christian. I can get over Willie’s, John’s, F.L.A.’s, etc…, b/c I know they’re not Christian, and don’t purport to be. But you claim (keyword – CLAIM) to be, and yet still believe that it’s not even a settled fact that Christ lived? Whatever works for you, Fred, but know this; the beliefs you have let us know about are incorrect.

  42. WW said

    “Professor Campbell, what is a myth?”
    “A myth? A myth is somebody ELSE’S religion.”
    ..

  43. John said

    The same could also be said about the label “cult”.
    Brad, as a Young-Earther you prescribe to a custom made version of history and sciences to help you support your “strong”, “logical” theological beliefs.
    But that’s why we love you[smile].

  44. John said

    Kenneth J. and MonkeyMan, did you hear todays show? Stu needs you.

  45. amanda said

    Brad,

    Tell us how you really feel! But then we all know that we can’t trust “feelings”!

  46. Fred said

    Brad is never wrong, is he?

  47. Brand Willie said

    Ever notice when you have to name something “The TRUTH,” it usually isn’t? (cf. Russia’s “Pravda”)

  48. Mike S said

    Is that the truth Willie?

  49. Fred said

    Stu, I answered your questions (see post #15), yet you haven’t returned the favor. I hereby pronounce you a discourteous fellow.

    Sorry,
    Fred

  50. Mike S said

    That’s mighty narrow of you Fred. Where’s that liberal tolerance you so boldy claim? Oh yeah it only works one way. Conservatives are the only ones who are supposed to be tolerant of others. Liberals are exempt.

  51. John said

    I am a Liberal-ish sort of person[smile].
    Perhaps Stu is still waiting for reinforcements to save him?
    I’ll keep waiting. I have the patience of a python.

  52. F. L. A. said

    IF YOU WAIT LONG ENOUGH……..EVENTUALLY THE PYTHON MAY DIE OF OLD AGE. IS THIS YOUR GAME PLAN, STU[HUGE, SHARP-TOOTHED GRIN]?
    BECAUSE IF IT IS, DO KNOW THAT THERE WILL ALWAYS BE OTHER PYTHONS.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: