More on Frank Turek vs. Hayden Carroll

 

My attention was drawn to the above video posted on Twitter/X by Frank Turek (link) which provides a more complete account of the exchange between him and Hayden Carroll. In most of the exchanges Frank Turek asks good questions, and gives reasonable answers; while Hayden Carroll asks pointless questions, or gives pointless or irrelevant answers—focusing on Sola Scriptura, or infallibility and inerrancy of scripture—which are irrelevant to the discussion. LDS theology and doctrine has no issues at all with Sola Scriptura, nor with the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture—as previously noted. Towards the end of the video Frank asks a couple of questions that merit further discussion. At around 6:45 minutes into the video he asks the following question:

“Let me just say this, are golden plates a miracle?”

The answer is, the way in which they were revealed to Joseph Smith was a miracle. Joseph Smith did not find the plates by accident. They were revealed to him by an angel, who told where to find them, and also how to translate them. That was a miracle.

The way in which the translation was done was also a miracle. Joseph Smith did not know the language in which the plates were written. It required a miracle for him to be able to read, and to translate them—and to do so in such a short period of time—and into a superb, perfect English which he was not qualified for, nor educated enough to be able to do. That was also a miracle.

The way in which the plates were shown to three of the witnesses by an angle—with the voice of God himself being heard speaking out of heaven, and testifying to their truth—was also a miracle.

And the truth of the Book of Mormon can ultimately be known only by the testimony of the Holy Ghost—through a careful and prayerful study of the book. Then at around 9:31 minutes into the video Frank asks the following question:

“The question is if Evangelical Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?”

That is an incoherent question—in a number of ways. Firstly, his question implies that “Evangelical Christianity” is the only form of Christianity that there is! How about Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox etc. forms of Christianity. Are they not “Christian?”. Only Evangelicals are Christian? That is the implication of his question.

Secondly, what does he mean by “Evangelical Christianity” being “true?” What makes a particular Christian church, religion, or denomination “true”—as distinct from any other? What criteria does he apply, and who gets to decide? I have no difficulty accepting any Christian church or denomination as “true,” in so far as they declare belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and acknowledge him as the Savior and Redeemer of the world. That is commendable. But when they reject the Restoration of the gospel in the latter days, and try to close the Canon, and shut the mouth of God, and deny him the right to speak whenever he wants to, I have a problem with that. That is blasphemy—shutting the mouth of God, and denying him the right to speak anytime he wants to.