By Shawn McCraney
Alathea Press, 2003
(Note:
Although the date at the front of this book says "Copyright 2003,", it
appears that this book was published after August 31, 2005, which is
the date provided at the end of Shawn McCraney's prologue.)
Reviewed by Eric Johnson
Is it possible for a person to be "born again" and yet remain active in the Mormon Church? According to Shawn McCraney, who became a Christian believer in 1998 before being excommunicated by the LDS Church in 2002, Mormons should be encouraged to change their doctrines and become "Born-Again Mormons" by worshipping the biblical God as expressed in Evangelical Christianity, all the while maintaining an official Mormon identity.
The self-published book has no page numbers; hence, exact page locations of quotes used in the review will not be given. In addition, the book has many spelling, grammatical, and typesetting errors, all of which may make it difficult for the serious reader to consider McCraney's unique views. In the preface McCraney says that he has "an agenda, but it is out in the open and aimed at bringing Latter-day Saints to the Lord by attacking erroneous doctrines and practices and not the physical church they have grown to love.... I've written Born-Again Mormon for those people who are at least willing to recognize themselves as constantly failing and who hopefully are open to doing something about it while they remain active members of the Church."
In fact, he does not recommend "that members of the Church abandon their memberships nor am I suggesting they join another religious institution." Whether they leave the church or stay as members, "whatever happens thereafter in terms of worship, fellowship, or membership is between the regenerated soul and the Lord." He thus hopes that the book will "serve as a support for those born-again Saints who choose to remain active in the Church while working to bring other members of the Church to the Lord."
By remaining in the LDS Church, he hopes that the "Born-Again Mormon" can affect change that could possibly revolutionize Mormonism. McCraney's website declares that he is "dedicated to helping preserve the LDS Church and all of the wonderful contributions it makes to the lives of individuals, families, society and the world at large" (retrieved on www.bornagainmormon.com on May 21, 2006). While McCraney may feel that this is cutting-edge evangelism—and I admit it's a new strategy that I have never heard before—this is the complete antithesis of biblical orthodoxy. This idea is just as strange as Paul recommending that new Christians continue worshipping at the Temple of Dianna while simultaneously fellowshipping in a Christian community.
In addition, let's consider the implications of McCraney's philosophy. What he suggests is that Latter-day Saints become "born again" and accept doctrines that are contrary to the essential core of the Mormon Church. However, he doesn't have a problem with the members retaining their membership and attendance practices in order "to bring other (Latter-day Saints) to the Lord." At one point in the book, he even recommends that "Born-Again Mormons" bear their "testimony of spiritual rebirth in fast and testimony meetings" and use their "ward or stake calling to help others know the Lord."
While some Christians have shared their Christian testimony while visiting Mormon wards during a fast and testimony meeting without an objection from the bishop, it seems highly unlikely that this patience would continue to be extended to a "Born-Again Mormon" who regularly attempts to testify using truth claims that conflict with Mormon teaching. But McCraney seems to contradict himself on this issue. For instance, he states that "a Born-Again Mormon will take every opportunity to speak in church with the sole purpose of bringing people to spiritual rebirth through the Lord." However, on the previous page he had written this: "A Born-Again Mormon would never disrupt a meeting, class, activity, or service to correct, confront, or chide a member of the Church on doctrine, policy, or practice but would instead express his or her Christ-centered opinions in a private, proper, and peaceful setting."
How does a "Born-Again Mormon" live out this apparent contradiction? In essence, such a person could not in good conscience express biblical truth for fear that he will be "correcting, confronting, or chiding" the Latter-day Saint. So how exactly is he supposed to do this if he is not allowed to say something that might be taken in an offensive manner? McCraney doesn't explain.
Although Jesus certainly did say that Christians are to be as wise as serpents, He also said they were to be innocent as doves. Is it really truthful for a person who has been regenerated by Christ to retain membership in an organization that denies or distorts every fundamental teaching of the historic Christian church? Is it disingenuous for someone to take the sacrament of water and bread and thereby fellowship with those not of the same faith, especially since the meaning of this sacrament is different from the Christian ordinance? Exactly where in the Bible is this type of stealth evangelism advocated?
Contrary to McCraney's opinion, the Word of God says that Christians should not fellowship with those outside the faith. For example, Paul wrote this in 1 Corinthians 10:20-21: "But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." While the word "devils" is a pretty strong word, it must be understood that sharing fellowship with someone who has the wrong god/gods is not biblically permissible. Ephesians 5:11 clearly states, "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them."
Someone might counter my point by saying that Jesus easily related with sinners, including tax collectors and prostitutes, during His ministry. The difference is that Jesus was not having spiritual fellowship with such people; rather, His motive was to love those who needed the gospel the most. Paul certainly visited the synagogue every time he went to a new city on his missionary journeys, but never do we see the Christians continuing their spiritual fellowship with the Jews. Rather, Acts 2:42 says that, from the very beginning, they separated themselves and remained "steadfast in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."
Imagine if the tables were turned and a fellow Christian believer decided to become a Latter-day Saint. Suppose this new Mormon desired to remain in the local Christian church fellowship with the purpose of convincing the other members that Mormonism was true. A pastor of this Christian church who refused to expel such a person from this fellowship would be akin to a shepherd who allows his flocks to play with wolves. No, the vast majority of Christian churches today would not tolerate such an attitude, so why would anyone think that this would be a fair tactic for a new Christian in a Latter-day Saint ward?
Finally, how wise is it to advise a person to attend "a respected Bible-teaching Church in addition to your LDS meetings"? A new Christian believer is bound for a road filled with confusion and misunderstanding by remaining in both organizations. How would we expect this person to sort out error from truth? This raises the question regarding who becomes the religious authority figure for this believer. The Christian pastor? Or the Mormon bishop? Clearly this new believer would be getting conflicting messages regarding what is true and what is false. How can asking the new Christian believer to remain in a former ward be beneficial to his or her spiritual welfare?
Supported by a sponsorship of the Calvary Chapel denomination, McCraney flies from Southern California to Utah each week in order to host a Christian television call-in show. On both television and in his book, he has made it very clear that he has little respect for the countercult community. He writes, "A Born-Again Mormon would never use anti-Mormon literature to try and sway a Latter-day Saint to Christ but would diligently seek the Lord through prayer, fasting, and study of the Word."
This is what is known as an "either/or fallacy." According to his rationale, there are only two possibilities: either witnessing takes place through "anti-Mormon literature" or it takes place through "study of the Word." There is no in between. With no research, statistics, or any information whatsoever to back up his assumption, McCraney takes his personal preference and turns it into absolute truth. Why shouldn't resources be used to compliment the information that comes from the Bible? We are not told. Nor can he explain the many thousands of former Mormons who have come to a saving faith in Jesus through the use of Christian literature targeting the LDS people.
He then makes three points to show how there are "some inherent difficulties with most anti-Mormon literature." Allow me to list each point with a quick response:
There are several problems here. First, McCraney assumes that God wants us to feel good about ourselves, yet the Bible doesn't support such an idea. Rather, it clearly teaches that everyone has sinned and is therefore worthy of eternal separation from God (Rom. 3:23, 6:23). It is only when we realize that we do fall short of God's holiness that we can truly fall on our knees and look to the cross. While we would be in complete agreement with McCraney's premise that we should not be arrogant in our evangelism, the primary function of the gospel is to convict people of their fallen nature. The Good News is bad news to those who haven't accepted it. While Mormons are certainly involved in good works, these are not what get them closer to God. Ephesians 4:15 emphasizes that we should "speak the truth in love."
I am also not sure how "anti-Mormon literature"—the word "anti-Mormon" is a negative word itself and one that I believe is an attack against those in countercult ministry, which is ironic given McCraney's point here—"attacks" the Mormon individual. If I privately tell someone that she has some spinach between her teeth, would I expect that she tell me to mind my own business because I am "attacking" her? Or would she take the point in context and realize that I care enough to say something instead of allowing her to walk around all day in this embarrassing circumstance?
Again McCraney makes an assumption with no factual support of any kind. With a broad brush of his pen, he characterizes "anti-Mormon literature" as trying to embarrass the Mormon Church. Going to the previous example, would I really be "embarrassing" the lady by letting her know about the spinach? Without further information or any examples, how is the reader supposed to understand this allegation?
Broad generalizations are made with no support. He does list "films, videos, presentations, and websites" as sources of "anti-Mormon literature," but once again, he provides no specifics. For whatever the reason, McCraney somehow assumes that the goal of Christian literature is to "destroy" the Mormon. From where does this idea come? It almost seems as if McCraney hasn't shed his old Mormon mindset. If the purpose of such materials truly is to "destroy" Mormons, then he is accusing those involved with these Christian ministries (including Mormonism Research Ministry) of hating the LDS people. McCraney's biased judgment of these ministries' motives is an unfair attack in itself.
His conclusion that "most anti-Mormon efforts" are unfruitful is not documented with even one shred of evidence. And McCraney's creation of straw man arguments (i.e. "And though many anti-Mormon books attempt to say... 'Mormons believe this, and Mormons believe that'") are far too generalized and unfair given his lack of support. To make the accusations as he does here requires much more research and not just a mere cursory glance that is comprised of nothing more than his own biased personal opinion.
In the second part of his book, McCraney covers LDS teachings on Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the Bible. One thing that really sticks out is his view on the Book of Mormon, a book that he says a "Born-Again Mormon" would not historically accept. Yet he writes this: "I am convinced of the author's good intentions in originally writing it. Whether Joseph was inspired by God, an angel, or the devil to write the book cannot be proven—any more than if Victor Hugo was inspired by God or the devil (sic) to write LesMiserables (sic). What is known, relative to the rest of Mormon doctrine, is that the Book of Mormon is no more threatening to Christianity than any biblically based piece of fictional literature..." He adds, "A Born-Again Mormon considers the Book of Mormon a work of nineteenth century literature, similar in inspiration to Pilgrim's Progress, and respects whatever Christ-centered teachings it represents so long as they do not conflict with, or take the place of, biblical teachings."
I disagree with McCraney. Smith did not produce the Book of Mormon in order that it would be treated flippantly. Whether or not he thought it was true is irrelevant. The fact is that Mormons are instructed to consider the book's words as truth. Either the Book of Mormon is inspired scripture that speaks of real people, real events, and real places, or it is nothing more than 19th century fiction. There is no in between possibility. Every Mormon missionary is instructed to have potential converts read this book and seriously consider the prescription of Moroni 10:4, which says a person should pray about whether or not the LDS scripture is true. Those praying with a "sincere heart"and "real intent" will end up receiving a "burning in the bosom," which is a strong feeling in their hearts that tells them that Joseph Smith was a true prophet as well as how the LDS Church is the restoration of biblical Christianity.
How could this sacred LDS scripture have been provided with good intentions if it isn't true? The very golden plates were said to be delivered to Smith by an angel to help fix the broken-down apostate Christianity spoken of by the Father and Jesus as they explained in the First Vision account that Christianity was "all wrong" and that "all (the Christian denominational) creeds were an abomination in his sight..." (Joseph Smith—History 1:19). If, as the preface to the Book of Mormon says, this book was supposed to be "the fulness of the everlasting Gospel," then how could there be "good" intentions when the very purpose of this book was to help fix what "apostate Christendom" had corrupted over the previous 1500+ years?
On a flight to Utah I had a wonderful conversation with an LDS seminary teacher and his new wife. When the topic of Joseph Smith came up, this young man acknowledged that his church's founding prophet was not a saint in every aspect of his life. Yet, he asked, why do Christians want to discredit Smith while preserving the integrity of the Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others? "These men weren't perfect either," he said, which is true as these men had their own idiosyncrasies and unique behaviors. "Why should Smith's personal history and storied background matter?" he asked.
The answer, I said, is that Luther and Calvin did not claim to have a personal revelation from God telling them to restore Christianity to the earth. Smith supposedly did. With no witnesses to this event or Moroni's supposed annual visits to Smith showing him the plates—in fact, no one ever saw these plates except with their "eyes of faith"—the credibility of Smith is even that much more crucial. Much rides on the integrity of the original Mormon prophet. Tenth LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith disagrees with McCraney when he wrote: "Mormonism, as it as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground. If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an impostor cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect. The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried buy the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures" (Doctrines of Salvation 1:188).
Smith apparently recognizes something that McCraney is overlooking. Either Joseph Smith had good intentions or he did not. The Book of Mormon does not purport to contain just some scripture; rather, it is scripture. If Smith knew that God the Father and Jesus never really appeared to him, and if he knew that Moroni and the Book of Mormon plates were figments of his fertile but deceptive imagination, then he did not have good intentions. The only good intentions he could have had would be if these events really did take place. If these events really happened, then Smith's story along with the Book of Mormon is true. If this is so, then everyone ought to convert to Mormonism as soon as they can. There is no middle ground. Thus, the Book of Mormon cannot be compared to fictional works from writers such as C.S. Lewis or John Milton.
McCraney also says that evidence cannot be provided that would "prove" the Book of Mormon to be fictional literature. He writes, "From a philosophical standpoint, Joseph provided a biblical alternative that could not be proven false with any measure of certainty. It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. No matter how hard people try, where they look, what they claim, or what they personally experience, they can never prove that there is no Santa Claus. We can believe he is a fallacy, laugh at the premise, apply logic to our arguments, and offer all types of historical, material, and mathematical proofs; but in the end, we cannot prove he doesn't exist. So no matter how hard anti-Mormon writers or Christian scholars try to prove The Book of Mormon fiction, there will never be any conclusive finding that can categorically prove it. It is a waste of time, energy, and mind-power to even try."
While McCraney is certainly correct that, empirically, it is impossible to prove that "something does not exist," there are a number of tests that can be given to show the likelihood (or unlikelihood) of any possible scenario. For instance, the existence of a Santa Claus who flies through the air to deliver presents to good boys and girls can be shown to be a fairy tale in a number of ways. Or how likely is it that populations as large as those mentioned in the Book of Mormon can all disappear without leaving some evidence of their existence? After all, geographic and biological descriptions can be examined to see if this is even a possibility. If these tests continually fail to support the book's claims, faith in Nephites, as with Santa Claus, tends to become nothing more than foolishness.
The Christian and the Atheist have the same dilemma, as neither can "prove" God's existence or nonexistence. However, their faith should be based on the facts. Questions such as "Which makes more sense: Intelligent Design or Evolution?" "Did everything come from nothing or from something?" and "Would it make more sense that morals came from a higher source or a source equal or lower to us?" ought to be asked. But to say that evidence (or the lack thereof) for the Book of Mormon should not be considered is not necessary and is actually not logical at all.
McCraney apparently considers Mormons to be non-rational people. While I concede that I have met some who are, I have also seen far too many people come out of Mormonism as a result of challenging the Book of Mormon's truth claims. The Holy Spirit has often worked in the hearts of Mormons to show them Mormonism's fallacy when the Book of Mormon was shown not to be what the LDS Church claimed it to be. It is safe to say that those Mormons who have come out as a result of this method would challenge McCraney's assumption. Their new-found faith is evidence enough that this method is not the waste of time that McCraney purports it to be.
Shawn McCraney is somehow hopeful that "Born-Again Mormons" who remain with the Latter-day Saint Church will be able to change the religion from within. He thinks that the possibilities are very similar to what took place in the 1990s when the Worldwide Church of God rejected the teachings of founder Herbert W. Armstrong. He writes: "As Born-Again Mormons gather in number and strength, it is anticipated that the present Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will become less esoteric in its religious adherence and more biblically inclined. Dramatic changes in the World Wide Church of God (sic) show that it is possible for powerful legalistic religions to change direction. Eventually all the peculiar practices and beliefs which presently serve as important doctrines of salvation to the Saints will begin to fade in the light of biblical truth and open praise for the Lord."
McCraney's comparison between the Worldwide Church of God (WWCG) and the Mormon Church is really a comparison of apples and oranges. This is because the WWCG's transformation took place from the top down. Its president, Joseph Tkach, Jr., was responsible for the decision to move away from Armstrong's heterodoxy. This was not a transformation that started with the membership and ended up changing the leadership's mind. Thus, the comparison really should not be made.
Furthermore, it is incorrect to assume that Armstrong's heresies disappeared with the WWCG's recent transformation. It is estimated that there are now more than 300 splinter groups, with approximately 30,000 members still adhering to his erroneous teaching. What guarantees that this same type of fracturing would not occur should the LDS Church all of a sudden renounce its troublesome doctrines?
I believe Shawn McCraney is a born again Christian, and there were several places that I think he brings up good points. For instance, I liked his charts in the middle of the book describing "attitudes which often precede true spiritual rebirth," "events generally associated with true spiritual rebirth," and "characteristics that usually develop after spiritual rebirth." His points in this section were both insightful and, though they were not referenced, quite biblical. However, McCraney's methodology as described in other areas of his book is seriously lacking in substance and, in many areas, is untried, unprovable, and even sometimes unbiblical. I think he needs to revisit the very idea that it is possible to be born again while remaining Mormon. This idea makes no biblical sense at all and should be rejected as a plausible evangelistic strategy.