Talk Show Program Blog

Following is an email exchange without including the author's name:

Subject: Latest show. (Bits and Pieces)

Hey vanehale

First of all i like to say that i love your show. I'm listening to your podcasts for a couple of weeks now from the Netherlands. You generally have great show. I do got one comment about your latest show. If you so completely devastate and show the insanity of the comments some of your more colorful callers make you might discourage them from calling. Generally you have some great comic relief in your shows by callers making a complete fool of themselves by making very predictable and unfounded comments. If you discourage them as much as you do you might have to look for those entertaining breaks somewhere else. So maybe you shouldn't be so hard of them. They are just comedians in training

Then again, maybe it wouldn't be too bad if they didn't call. :-). Keep up the great work and i'm looking forward to new podcasts to be added.

My Response:

I have three callers who present a problem for me. My position has always been to accept calls regardless of the person's point of view. These three callers, however, seem intent upon monopolizing my program. The one is determined to spend his time mis-stating my views, refusing to allow me to respond and calling me a very long list of names. My program is about Mormon history, doctrine, scripture and controversy, not this sort of childish banter. This caller's disciple calls in to attempt to lend support. Another calls in with the most wild points and when I ask him for a source, he gives a vague reference which always turns out to be false.

I have received a lot of criticism for allowing them to participate. Most comments I have received suggest the time could be better spent. I have decided to curtail the length of time I allow them, but I am not prepared to change my 27 year long policy of inviting callers regardless of their point of view. I hope I can deal with this in such a way as to be bearable.

In last week's discussion of the PBS film "The Mormons" a caller insisted that Brigham Young ordered the 1857 massacre of a wagon train passing through Utah as the Army sent by Pres. Buchanan was on its way to Great Salt Lake Valley. This has been alleged many times, most recently by Will Bagley in the PBS film. I believe evidence and reason do not support such a claim. The Mountain Meadows Massacre was a terrible incident where Mormons and Indians in the Cedar City, Utah area attacked a wagon train of about 150 immigrants on their way to California, killing about 120.

John D. Lee was the only one tried, convicted and, in 1877, executed for this mass murder.

I believe a most significant document is Wilford Woodruff's diary entry 29 September 1857 where he recorded John D. Lee's report of the massacre which occurred on 11 September 1857. Woodruff's magnificent diary, which he kept for some 60 years, is an important and reliable source of Mormon history. He was present when Lee reported to Brigham Young. This contemporary report is inconsistent with the claims that Brigham Young had ordered the massacre. It will be noted that Lee gave an account of the events leading to the massacre, but without any mention of his, or any other Mormons, involvement. Woodruff's diary entry reads:

29th We have another Express in this morning saying that the Armey are rapidly marching towards us. Will soon be at Bridger & they wish men immediately sent out.

Elder John D. Lee also arived from Harmony with an express and an awful tale of Blood. A Company of Calafornia Emigrants of about 150 men women & Children many of them belonged to the mob in Missouri & Illinois they had many Cattle & Horses with them. As they travelled along south they went damning Brigham Young Heber C. Kimball & the Heads of the Church saying that Joseph Smith ought to have been shot a long time before he was. They wanted to do all the evil they Could so they poisoned Beef & gave it to the Indians & several of them died. They poisioned the springs of water. Several of the saints died. The Indians became inraged at their Conduct & they surrounded them on a prairie & the Emigrants formed a Bulwark of ther waggons & dug an Entrenchment up to the Hubs of there waggons but the Indians fought them 5 days untill they killed all their men about 60 in Number. They then rushed into their Carrall & Cut the throats of their women & Children except some 8 or 10 Children which they brought & sold to the whites. They striped the men & women Naked & left them stinking in the boiling sun.

When Brother Lee found it out he took some men & went & buried their bodies. It was a horrid awful Job. The whole air was filled with an awful stench. Many of the men & women was ro[tten?] with the pox before they were hurt by the Indians. The Indians obtained all ther Cattle Horses & property guns &c.

Their was another large Company of Emigrants who had 1,000 head of Cattle who was also damning both Indians & Mormons. They were afraid of shareing the same fate. Brother Lee had to send interpeters with them to the Indians to try to save their lives while at the same time they are trying to kill us.

We spent most of the day in trying to get the Brethren ready to go to the mountains.

Brother Brigham when speaking of the cutting of the throats of women & children as the Indians done South Said that it was heart rending that Emigration must stop as he had before said. Brother Lee said that He did not think their was a drop of innocent Blood in their Camp for he had too of their Children in his house & he Could not get but one to kneel down in prayer time & the other would laugh at her for doing it & they would sware like pirats. The scene of Blood has Commenced & Joseph said we should see so much of it that it would make our hearts sick.

Following is a comment posted to my podcast episode "Anti-Mormon vs Mormon" with my response

Bob Aarness:

Bottom line on the Mormon issue is that, officially speaking, the LDS Church is a polytheistic religion while most, if not all, mainstream Western religions are decidedly monotheistic religions. This overiding difference will forever keep the Mormon Church a seperate entity when it comes to Bible believing religions.

Van Hale:

First, I do not recognize Bob Aarness as authorized to speak officially for the LDS Church, and "polytheistic" has never been used by LDS authorities to define the LDS view of God.

Further, most mainstream Western religions are trinitarian; that is, they are not monotheistic. "Trinitarian" comes from the Latin "trinitas" which means three and cannot be used in any way to define true monotheism. To say that the one God is three persons is not monotheism. To say that there is one lone being, essence, power or person who stands alone as God is monotheism. This is the view of modern Judaism, which declares trinitarianism as a heresy because it is not monotheism. Jews, religiously, are monotheists; Christian trinitarians are not.

And finally, widespread commentary by non-LDS scholars explains that the view of God in ancient Israel, and found in many Biblical passages, is not monotheistic. Rather, the God of Israel, as found in Psalms 82 and a number of other passages, stands as the Head of a "heavenly council of gods." He is the "God of gods," the "most high God," the "head of the gods," which is not monotheism. And nowhere in the Bible is there any statement that there is one God manifest in three persons. So, monotheism, mainstream Western religion and trinitarianism all diverge from views of God found in the Bible.

Last Sunday on my talk show, and on his Tuesday TV show, Shawn McCraney insisted that I was attacking the Bible. In fact I was making observations from the Bible and about the Bible which could in no way be considered an attack on the Bible. Rather, the observations I was making argued against his narrow simplistic view of the Bible. There are many false ideas and traditions about the Bible which evaporate upon actually turning to the Bible.

For example, Shawn argued that if we turn to the sciences they prove the Bible and disprove the Book of Mormon. My contention is that both are religious books written for religious purposes and neither was written for any scientific purpose. I believe that attempts to prove the Divine origin or inspiration of either by resorting to science is misguided. Religious works are typically written for religious and spiritual persuasion. While both the Bible and Book of Mormon are complex works, the Bible more so than the Book of Mormon, I believe that it is obvious for both that their primary purpose is persuasion, not historical of scientific information. Also, to insist that the Bible is a scientific book has, and will, result in the loss of faith for many who back themselves into Shawn's corner where one must believe that Genesis is not an ancient story, but the actual manner and order of creation. Many who study the sciences will become disillusioned with the Bible if they have subscribed to Shawn's position.

We discussed the chronolgy of creation found in the first chapter of Genesis. It became a lively discussion. I was observing that the story in Genesis has the earth created before the sun and the stars; that makes the earth older than any other bodies in the universe, and further that the earth was covered with vegetation before the sun was created. I commented that this Biblical chronology of creation is not accepted by an overwhelming body of scientists worldwide in various scientific disciplines who have found persuasive reasons to believe that, compared to the sun and stars, the earth is very young and that the sun is necessary for the existence of plant life, thus believing that the earth was not covered with vegetation before the sun existed. Shawn's position was that the scientists are wrong and that I was attacking the Bible.

Many Christians subscribe to a different view of the Bible, myself included, which can accomodate the many instances where the Biblical account does not find support from science and history, or where the authors of different writings may disagree on common topics as we find in Genesis; Chronicles and Samuel; and on numerous points, great and small, in the four Gospels. I advocate learning from the Bible rather than imposing upon it some preconceived notion. This certainly is not attacking the Bible.

On last Sunday's program Shawn McCraney scoffed at the LDS belief that Jesus is their elder brother. Actually, LDS believe that he is their elder brother in addition to being one of the Gods in the Godhead. He is also the Son of God and is the elder brother of the other sons of God. I pointed out that this idea is clearly taught in the New Testament but was interrupted by him before I could supply several passages which present the kindom of God as a family with God as the Father, Jesus as the eldest son, the heir of the Father, and the others as Jesus' brothers and joint-heirs. Following are several of the many which teach this concept.

Hebrews 2:10-11

10Everything belongs to God, and all things were created by his power. So God did the right thing when he made Jesus perfect by suffering, as Jesus led many of God’s children to be saved and to share in his glory. 11Jesus and the people he makes holy all belong to the same family. That is why he isn’t ashamed to call them his brothers and sisters. (Contemporary English Version)

God is the last End of all things, the first Beginning of all things; and it befitted his majesty that, in summoning all those sons of his to glory, he should crown with suffering the life of that Prince who was to lead them into salvation. The Son who sanctifies and the sons who are sanctified have a common origin, all of them; he is not ashamed, then, to own them as his brethren. (Knox NT)

Romans 8:14-17, 29, 30

Only those who are lead by God’s Spirit are God’s sons. 15This Spirit you have received does not leave you in the old relationship to God of terrified slavery. No! This Spirit you have received makes you a son in the family of God, and through this Spirit we can cry to God: ‘Father, dear Father!’ 16This same Spirit joins with our spirit in the assurance that we really are children of God. 17If we are children of God, then we are heirs to all the promises of God. Yes, fellow-heirs with Christ, if our aim in life is to share his glory by sharing his suffering.

29For long ago, before they ever came into being, God both knew them and marked them out to become like the pattern of his Son, for it is his purpose that his Son should be the first and eldest of a great family. 30Not only did God mark out his own; he also called them. This call was an invitation to enter into a right relationship with himself, and for them this right relationship is the way to glory. (William Barclay New Testament)

14For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. 15So you should not be like cowering, fearful slaves. You should behave instead like God’s very own children, adopted into his family–calling him "Father, dear Father." 16For his Holy Spirit speaks to us deep in our hearts and tells us that we are God’s children. 17And since we are his children, we will share his treasures–for everything God gives to his Son, Christ, is ours, too. But if we are to share his glory, we must also share his suffering. 29For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the firstborn, with many brothers and sisters. 30And having chosen them, he called them to come to him. And he gave them right standing with himself, and he promised them his glory. (New Living Translation)