Aaron Shafovaloff

See also 2 Nephi 9: 7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more. 8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace⁠! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil⁠, to rise no more. 9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil⁠, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies⁠, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angelof light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness. 10 O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell⁠, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit.

Quick note on the debate last night against Jacob Hansen, neo-Mormon/Oslerite. I used one term during the debate a number of times, and repeated it with almost every person I talked to afterward while greeting folks: reprehensible. “deserving censure or condemnation.” Irresponsible. Dishonest. And in this case, based upon a clear and obvious prejudice, bias, and animosity, not so much toward me, but toward “Calvinism.” His opening statement was, quite honestly, below Dave Hunt. Seriously. And for those who listened to the debate review we did with Joe Heschmeyer, that was truly surprising. Hansen is smart. He was prepared to address the Papacy. But last night? Nothing but emotional mud slinging. All the standard heart-string pulling “oh its about the babies” tripe that you can find in any corner of YouTube. And the entire night the man did not raise a single verse that I had not addressed, fully, in _The Potter’s Freedom_ a quarter century ago. Yet he did not give the slightest evidence of knowing what I had written, though he quoted from the book. I am convinced Hansen’s “crew” put most of his notes together. At one point he “quoted” Aaron Shafovaloff (who was seated in the back row) and Aaron literally interrupted him, “I never said any such thing.” Before the cross ex Hansen asked to have time to apologize and admitted the quote was “second or third hand.” Then, during cross, he “read” me a quote from _The Potter’s Freedom.” I was sitting right next to him and I asked, “Are there any dots (ellipses) in that quote?” and asked for a page number. I watched him scanning his computer screen like he had never even seen the citation before. He admitted there were ellipses. I said, “Of course there are.” And he never gave me the citation. A kind young lady in the first row happened to have TPF with her, and she handed it to me. So he decided to go on to the next question. My conclusion is others “quote mined” the book and gave him a file with “good quotes to use.” As I pointed out, he never even attempted to refute the exegesis in the book because he lacks the capacity to do so. And he clearly did not read it seeking to understand the position. When he presented what “Limited Atonement” meant in his opening, it wasn’t even close. Jack Chick level silliness. So, I gave him no quarter. I was not going to play “buddy buddy” with someone who showed so little respect for simple honesty as to behave and speak as he did. He is not an orthodox Mormon on any level, and that came out when I tried to get him to at least admit that his god became a god by obedience to gospel ordinances and principles. I wanted to make the point (and did) that a finite god who became a god is insufficient grounding for transcendent principles and morality, hence undercutting the claim of his thesis. Oh, and the first question from the audience to him was whether God had killed every man, woman, and child in Noah’s flood. Not exactly surprising, he rejected the flood story on the basis of “science.” (Joseph Smith accepted the flood story as history). I am looking forward to the video coming out. If you think the cross-ex with Heschmeyer or Austin was “hot,” well…nothing compared to last night. But if you were hoping for a really thought out presentation from the LDS side…nothing. Think of the 1 million “John Calvin was a heretic” videos done by KJVO fundies on YouTube: same stuff. So when you see how I let him get away with nothing in cross-ex, the reason is simple: I knew he was capable of serious interaction, but had chosen the cheap way of dishonesty and misrepresentation, joined with emotional appeals to the audience. I have zero respect for such behavior. None. When I wrote TPF, I showed Geisler the utmost courtesy in researching his position, accurately representing it, etc. Hansen showed me, and the position, and the audience, nothing but smarmy condescension and disrespect. Finally, it is truly enlightening to watch neo-Mormonism, or maybe Oslerism, developing. Why the GAs are not only allowing this, but seemingly, promoting this, is beyond me.

The problem with Calvinism is it lets its followers do whatever they want and they can claim that God predetermined it to happen. It’s literally Satan’s plan in enticing us to avoid accountability for our actions.

Apparently he does not want me to be able to respond to his accusations. 🤔

As there has been some controversy about me quoting Aaron S. In a recent debate I figured I would share specifically what Aaron said to clear up any confusion.