FAQs & C.A.R.E. Mail Bag
Go to Recent C.A.R.E. Mail
Go to Archived C.A.R.E. Mail
Go to FAQs
C.A.R.E. Mail
Most recent mail will be added to the top. If you would like to ask us questions we'd be happy to answer them and post your question with our response(s). We will not use your full name, we will use initials or something appropriate. We will, of course, post our names so you know who is answering.
I have never contacted anyone at your site before. I have and do respect Dr. Baugh very much. My son is in a private school in Mobile, AL. It is a very good school. In studying the solar system the teacher told the class about a star that was 6,000,000 light years away from the earth. She told the class it seemed to disprove the creation theory if we belive the earth was created 6000 years ago. I would appreciate some help with this. Thanks
HA
--
Mr. A
Thank you for the query, please forgive the delay in our reply. I assume the teacher is re-hashing the old "starlight and time" problem. That is, because the light from distant stars had to take millions of years to reach us, how can we claim that the universe is only 6,000 years old? There are a number of comments that we could make here.
First, are the stars really as far away as some assert? Judging the distance of stars millions of light years away is a complex, multi-step process. The stars may or may not be as distant as is popularity claimed.
Second, other cosmologies exist which can explain the starlight problem within the context of a six day recent creation. For instance, Russell Humphreys has proposed that God created the earth and then stretched the heavens outward in all directions. According to the theory of relativity, when space is stretched, time is dilated. In other words, six normal days would be transpiring on earth, while millions of years would be passing in the distant universe as God stretched the heavens. It is interesting to note that this phrase, that God stretched the heavens, is found about a dozen times in the Old Testament. This is the view that is generally accepted by Answers in Genesis and The Institute for Creation Research.
Another view, the one that I personally agree with, is the one proposed by astronomer Barry Setterfield. He proposes that God stretched the heavens, thereby investing its fabric with a colossal amount of energy. The influx of this energy being released into the universe itself is measurable. The effect is an ever-increasing amount of virtual particle pairs (tiny fluctuations of matter and energy). The virtual particle pairs are causing light to take longer to get from point A to point B. The idea here is that in the original creation, light travelled much, much faster than it does today. You can read more about his theory at www.setterfield.org.
Third, evolutionists' have their own light travel time problem. No matter where in the universe they look, the temperature seems the same. This could have only happened if both sides of the universe have shared energy. The problem is, the universe is not old enough, even by the evolutionists' dating, to have accomplished this. A faster speed of light would solve their problem - and ours.
Fourth, God is all powerful and can handle the problem. Remember in Acts chapter 8, Philip was preaching to the Ethiopian in Gaza. The Bible says that the Spirit caught away Philip and he was found at Azotus - some 20 miles away. Supposing you were in Azotus and as you came around the corner you saw Philip preaching. You might ask him "Where did you come from?" He would answer, "From Gaza." What would you say if he said that he was just there five minutes ago? It would be hard to believe but it would be true. God can get something - people or light - from here to there in no time flat. Genesis one is clear that God put the stars in the sky to give light on the earth, and to give us folks down here a clock/calendar system.
I hope this helps you. Please mail me again if you have any questions. I'll do my best to get you an answer.
John Feakes
After listening to what you had to say about Mormonism at the Winnipeg Conference on Sept. 14th, I was appalled by your pompous attitude. Your presentation on what you termed as the "two pillars of Mormonism" came across as a vicious attack that you plan to execute on some unsuspecting Mormon Missionaries. And almost as an afterthought you mentioned, pray for them and be kind. Oh, after I destroy them with your approach, it's okay to be kind.
May I share with you the reality that I face every day? My entire family, my mom, my three brothers, all their children and grandchildren are Mormon. Not to mention aunts, uncles and cousins. Mormons take that part of the Bible seriously: multiply and replenish the Earth, so there are a lot of them. I love these people and they all have names! Did you know that from the time little boys are able to sit in a chair they are taught songs like, "I Hope They Send Me on a Mission". A lot of them are forced by parents and even girlfriends to fulfill a mission, otherwise they will suffer a form of shunning. By the way, they at least have to be 18-years-old. Did you know that there is so much pressure put on the women that most of them are addicted to anti-depressants? How can they be perfect even as their father in heaven is perfect? They are told they can't read or listen to anything "Non-Mormon", so they get to listen to General Conference twice a year and hear what their leaders tell them. They believe "Families are Forever" and any deviation from their course will leave them without their families. They are told not to question! They don't believe in Hell, but if they leave Mormonism they are told they will be cast out into outer darkness.
Finally, may I share an illustration with you that I developed as someone whom the Holy Spirit had rescued from Mormonism. From the time we are born we are told that this moldy crust of bread that we are given is "The Only True Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints." We hang onto it tightly, we are not allowed to question, or inspect it to see [if] there is something better to eat. When we hear about Jesus we are presented with a banquet, but out of habit we hang onto this crust of bread, because we're not sure of the truth, yet. As we began to taste what He offers us, we soon begin to devour it in our hunger and the crust of bread is forgotten and we belong to Jesus. You pried their hand [open] and you took away their bread, but you left them empty handed!
My heart breaks for the Mormon People, I pray that God will break your heart too.
1 Corinthians 13:1
MJ
(I'll be waiting to hear from you.)
--
Hi M,
Please forgive the lengthiness of this reply. You raised a number of important issues in your mail and each deserves prayerful meditation, reflection and consideration. Let me begin by saying that your mail has deeply affected me and caused me to seriously evaluate the way I have been approaching the subject of Mormonism. I deeply honor, respect and appreciate your love and concern for the Mormon community. Believe it or not, I do share your concern. Let us for now consider your mail and the statements you made about me and the Mormon community.
First - (may I say this gently?) - there is a troubling inconsistency in your critique of my presentation. There is not one person that I consulted that does not regard your first paragraph as pretty harsh. Imagine that. I'm being harshly criticized for being harsh! The inconsistency, I'm afraid, is even more troubling when I consider that you have no trouble giving a scathing rebuke to a brother in Christ who regularly sticks his neck out trying to defend the faith once delivered to the saints, but remain adamant that Mormons, who blaspheme the name of Christ our Savior, are to receive no such harsh rebuke. Something is amiss here.
Second, I don't think I was being "pompous" at all, nor does anyone else that I've asked. The same message you heard was given months ago at the Oxford Bible Church. This recording is on the internet and I've gotten nothing but gratitude from folks as far away as Japan eager to learn about Mormonism and how they might answer its specific challenges to our faith. I've been speaking publicly on apologetics related issues for over 7 years now and I can honestly tell you that I feel just as nervous every time I present. I always seek the prayers of a godly man before I go to speak, realizing that I need all the help I can get. I've been called all sorts of things, but one thing that no one has ever charged me with is "pompousness." As I reflect on the presentation and the other comments that I have received, I really feel that your charge against me here is unfounded.
Third, I don't think I was being harsh either. Yes, I destroyed some of the blasphemous claims of Joseph Smith, particularly his claim that the Bible was corrupt and incomplete. Recall that I spent the bulk of the presentation on this point. This is important. With the time that I was given, I could have instead focused on the linguistic problems of the book of Mormon, or the historical anachronisms, or more powerfully yet – the DNA evidence which is devastating to the Mormon claims of Hebrew ancestry for the Native peoples. But I didn't. Instead, I erected a positive case for the Bible, which alone destroys the Mormon worldview while honoring the great God we serve. This brings me to the next point.
Fourth, with a positive case for the Bible firmly established, the Mormon is not left "empty handed". He is left with the evidence for a faithful God who cares enough to send His only Son to die in our stead; a God so great and gracious that He gave us His word once and has protected and preserved it throughout the ages.
Fifth, you stated that my approach was "a vicious attack that [I] plan to execute on some unsuspecting Mormon Missionaries." If there is one thing that Mormon "Missionaries" should not be it's "unsuspecting". These guys come banging on our doors spreading all sorts of blasphemy while they claim to represent Christ. At the same time they boldly proclaim that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and that this "prophet" has proclaimed that all other Christian churches (including yours and mine) are "an abomination." Now how can you say that a person walking around banging on doors with a message of this sort is "unsuspecting"? Incredible!
Sixth, you must understand that this presentation was for those unacquainted with Mormonism. I had only 45 minutes to fill them in on this very important topic. All I gave those folks were verifiable facts: Biblical, scientific and historic. What people do with the facts is up to them. I reminded the people to be gracious and kind to Mormons, but one way or the other, Mormons need the truth. It's the truth that sets people free.
Seventh, and lastly, I think that a horrible conflict has been erected in your mind. Somehow truth has been pitted against love. This is simply anti-biblical. The Bible teaches that real love rejoices in truth. Mormons may need love - we all do - but truth is the thing that is really ultimate here. One of the greatest missionaries of all time had absolutely no love at all for the people he was preaching to. This missionary's name was Jonah. He had no love at all for the Ninevites, but he did have truth and that was enough.
Now I'm not at all suggesting that we be unnecessarily harsh and unloving with people, just the opposite in fact. But most of us will not be able to deal with Mormons in long term relationships. We meet them at the door or on the street and engage in conversation. We have a short time to tell them…what? What do we tell them? I honestly feel that we need to demonstrate that 1. God has been faithful to preserve his word and church (no restoration needed) and that 2. The Book of Mormon appears to be a nineteenth century hoax. This is called "contending for the faith", and it is commanded by Scripture. These facts concerning the Bible and the Book of Mormon are unanswerable and indisputable. It is impossible that after several such encounters with reasonable people with sound arguments, that the typical Mormon walks away absolutely unaffected. Many Mormons have left the "church" after an honest assessment of the facts. The point is - they need the facts. If caring Christians won't share them, then who will?
In closing may I remind us that our evangelistic efforts should not be primarily motivated by love for people or a desire to see them escape the flames of hell? This is secondary. Our primary motive ought to be to glorify God. This is our purpose here; to see the blessed Lamb of God vindicated and to see Him receive the reward of His sufferings. That reward, strangely, is us. According to Philippians 2, the confession that Jesus is Lord brings glory to God the Father. That ought to be our motivation here. I have a real hard time with believing we ought to simply engage in some sort of friendship evangelism with Mormon "missionaries" with the brief time that we have, while leaving their blasphemous remarks about our blessed Lord unchallenged. Forgive me for the discomfort I may have caused you, M, but I remain convinced that my approach to this subject is the correct, God-honoring one.
I will pray for you and your efforts to see your family liberated.
Sincerely,
John Feakes.