Intense Conversation with a Mormon Internet Apologist

Does the LDS Church have a policy, is it the LDS Church's policy, that same -sex marriage is considered an act of apostasy for purposes of church discipline?

Do you have an opinion on whether it should be counted as an act of apostasy? Why not? So, in the

Bible, it teaches in 1 Corinthians 5, that if somebody is unrepentantly engaged in sexual morality, that they're to be purged.

Why does that mean? In the context of 1 Corinthians 5, it's talking about rejection of religious table fellowship.

Okay, so you should kill them. No, not in the context of 1 Corinthians 5. Well, that's what it would mean in the first century.

No. If you cast out somebody for religious apostasy, it invariably would probably mean their death.

Like physical death? Yeah, like literally their death, because you're casting them out of their community. So, in 1 Corinthians 5, what it means is that they're rejected from religious table fellowship.

Okay. They're not counted as fellow believers. They're not fellowshiped with as though a fellow... What does that mean? It means they're no longer participating as members in good standing who are fellow believers.

Aaron, you've got to be more specific. So, if somebody... What does that mean? I can't come to the building and talk to you guys anymore?

No, you can come... I can't pray with you? You're still welcomed as a visitor? I can't eat. I can't share food. I can't tithe.

What does it mean? You ought not take communion with us. Okay, so I shouldn't eat your food. And you ought not vote as a church member.

Right, and I shouldn't pray. I shouldn't give anything. Or be greeted as a member in good standing. Right. I should be ostracized.

There should be some social consequences. Hopefully, an open door to come back. But in the context of 1

Corinthians 5, those who, without repentance, engage in sexual morality should not be received as members, as fellow believers in good standing.

Paul's language is that that should be purged. And what does this have to do with... Well, if it's a true restoration, and it's bringing the ethics of the

New Testament back to bear... Is that what you think that's going on here? Well, I think the LDS Church is rejecting that.

No, but do you think that's what the LDS Church believes it's doing? Restoring the pattern of the New Testament? It's restoring what?

Every practice that they engaged in? At least the general patterns, right? Because they obviously don't, because they don't have those. But the idea, though, is that it's restoring the patterns of the original primitive church, right?

According to who is that the pattern? I don't have a quote offhand, but...

In part, a restoration of the patterns of the primitive church authorized by Jesus and the apostles. According to who? Where did you get that idea? Oh, I don't have a quote offhand for you yet.

Well, then why do you believe that? Because you're believing something you don't have any reason to believe. Because I've been talking to Latter -day Saints for a long time. Okay, so random

Latter -day Saints on the street are the ones who set the principles and doctrines of the Church? Or does the Church do that? So this isn't a criticism.

There's a general optimism that the LDS Church is following the precedent of the teachings of the

New Testament and is the truest expression of faithfulness to New Testament teachings. So my premise is this.

If the LDS Church was a faithful, true, healthy Church, it would practice

Church discipline on those who commit same -sex marriage. It would be considered an act of apostasy.

And it would also have apostles who talk to God and direct specific questions to God in order to receive specific answers as to what's going on in their specific day.

Can I set it up as a syllogism for you? Okay. So if the LDS Church is a true

Church, its leadership will, by policy, count the act of same -sex marriage as an act of apostasy.

The LDS Church does not consider same -sex marriage to be an act of apostasy. Therefore, the

LDS Church is not a true Church. I reject your second premise. Say again? I reject your second premise. That the... That we do not condone same -sex marriage as the

Church does. But it does not treat same -sex marriage according to... But it does not treat...

That's called grace. It doesn't... That's called grace. It doesn't treat same -sex marriage... When you recognize somebody's sins and ignorance, that's grace, right? I think we're kind of racing ahead too quick.

I don't want to talk over each other too much. No, no, no. That's what I'm saying. So if a same -sex couple shows up to Church and they sit down in the pew, what are we supposed to do with them, according to you?

Are they believers or are they members? They're... Just guests? They're there. I don't know. If they're guests, there's just a long road of gentle teaching.

But if they're members that have already... And you don't think we would do that? Oh, I think your disposition would be to be kind and patient.

I'm not... But to tell them to break up and not be married and divorce and stuff. Is that what you would do in your church?

We would, as quickly as we could, call them to repentance. And if they didn't, if they continued to attend the Church...

Then they would not be counted as repentant, and therefore they would not be counted as members and gestating or members at all.

So would they be still allowed to attend the Church and participate? Attend, but not as members. Okay, yeah. Yeah, so what I'm saying is that...

So how does one get membership in your church? In part it would be to go through the membership agreement, covenant, standard of conduct, the shared statement of faith.

And you guys keep records of people who are members of your church? Yeah, yeah. So the big idea, I'm not trying to talk over your race rhetorically with you, but the idea here is that the

LDS Church should, if a true church, treat same -sex marriage as an act of apostasy.

According to who? According to 1 Corinthians 5. Okay, and if that's not the authority for us, what should we do then?

Repent, and make 1 Corinthians 5 part of the authority. Okay, so why is 1 Corinthians 5 our authority? Because you claim the

New Testament. In a New Testament restoration church. Because you claim to believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly. Okay, so in the New Testament, you're aware they didn't have...

Let's just slow down a little bit, right? I talk over people too much. I think you're an excited conversationalist, I am too, so let's just both intentionally slow down.

No, I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. So if we're restoring the first century church, if that's the claim, who's the authority?

You'll have to expand. You'll have to expand. If I'm in the first century, who's the authority?

The Bible? The Word of God. The Bible? Whether written or orally given through apostles.

Right, right. So, we have living apostles. So... There's the answer to most of your questions.

My syllogism still holds, right? It doesn't. If you have living apostles who are true apostles, they will, as a matter of policy, treat same -sex marriage as an act of apostasy.

Why would they do that? Because they would be consistent with Inspired New Testament teaching. Okay, and if they believe that God has revealed to them to act differently than your understanding of 1

Corinthians, right? I think that would be your understanding of 1 Corinthians 5 as well. No, but if that's what...

If you looked at it, I mean, I'm not trying to be insulting, but I think that's a pretty straightforward reading of 1 Corinthians. I don't have an understanding of 1

Corinthians. Paul, in 1 Corinthians, very straightforwardly condemns homosexuality. Okay, I have to do that. He even names it.

But he includes... What do you mean he names it? There's a famous passage in 1

Corinthians where Paul says that... Arsenicoetai? Such were some of you...

Yeah, and arsenicoetai. Yeah, and I would also... 1 Corinthians 6. Thank you, thank you. Well, Paul's ethic includes a condemnation of homosexuality.

According to your understanding of what he's doing. I would say according to classic... Because, you know, that's a very debated passage as to what it's doing.

According to classic Latter -day Saint understanding... Well, that's fine. Classic Latter -day Saint understanding is irrelevant.

I would even say according to the classic prophetic tradition of the LDS church, they've considered the practice of homosexuality to be...

And so you think the church what? Sin. Accepts people who are gay? They do not consider same -sex marriage to be an act of apostasy for purposes of church discipline.

I'm basically just quoting from the LDS church newsroom. If that's the LDS church newsroom... And if it was a true church...

And what does that mean? If you had living true... And what does that mean? How does that look, function? It means that you're apostate.

Like, in practice, what does it look like in the church? That we don't consider it... You don't remove the membership. Right, okay.

Yeah, that's a problem. Okay, okay. You do, and you kick them out of your churches and don't let them attend your church. If they're unrepentant and persistent, absolutely, yeah.

Okay. And I'm saying that doesn't happen in the LDS church. Okay. Their membership is retained. They're not...

Your church isn't saying... Yeah, and they're allowed to attend the temple, and they're allowed to do everything else that Latter -day Saints are allowed to do when they're in an openly homosexual relationship.

It usually just depends... I don't know. I mean, you're the one that knows all this stuff. I would only go so far as to say their church membership is retained.

Okay, yeah, so they're still allowed to fellowship with the saints. As members in good standing. No, they're not members in good standing, because would they be able to hold a temple recommend?

Their membership would not be removed. Would they be able to hold a temple recommend? I don't know. I don't... Right, yeah. I think that might play out differently for people.

You should probably figure that out, because I don't know the answer to that question either. Are they allowed to hold a temple recommend? Do you know? Sorry, I didn't hear the question.

Are homosexual married couples in the church, while allowed to retain their membership, are they allowed to obtain a temple recommend?

Yeah. You should probably figure that out, right? Because that would be the crux of your argument, as to whether there's any form of church discipline.

Because the church gets to decide how it disciplines its members, right? They should be removed as members. Why? Well, it's the biblical principle.

Because Aaron said so. No, because Paul the Apostle said so. In 1 Corinthians 5. Okay, okay.

They should be purged in some manner. So everything in the New Testament, you do?

To the best of my ability, but not successfully. Your church functions like the New Testament. I think to the best of my ability is even an overstatement.

I mean, I try. Because you guys don't have an apostolic body that communes with God and produces answers to modern questions and situations, right?

Can I answer? Yeah. For real? I would say that we still hold to an apostolic foundation, that Paul treats the apostles of his day as a foundational set of apostles.

And I would say that the way we treat the deposit given to us of the apostolic foundation of Scripture is given to us by either apostles or close associates of apostles.

We treat that as Scripture, and we try to obey it. But my counterpoint would be, I don't think

Latter -day Saints treat their apostles as foundational apostles. I think Latter -day Saints, in order to call them apostles, have reduced the definition of apostles.

No, they're foundational apostles. Well, they're Bruce McConkie or Orson Pratt.

They're treated very disparagingly. Are they? Yes. You have significant

Latter -day Saint apostles who publish widely to millions of people in important works.

And then when they die, there's a rejection. It's treated as thorny and thistling. Miracle of Forgiveness by Spencer W.

Kimball. By works of Orson Pratt. Sermons by Brigham Young, a prophet. So Latter -day

Saints... What are those books? Which... What are they? There's Adam God's sermon. What are those books?

What are they? How do they function in the church? In our culture, how do they function? They have a significant impact. No, but what is it?

What is it? You'll have to fill in the blank. No, I don't know. I'm asking. So, I read Miracle of Forgiveness as a

Latter -day Saint. How am I supposed to view that text? According to who? According to me as a

Latter -day Saint. Right? The church is supposed to tell me how to view that, right? It's not just a book

I read and come up with my own opinions on, right? How is he, as a Latter -day Saint, supposed to view the

Miracle of Forgiveness? According to my perspective? Well, no, you're supposed to have the correct perspective.

Because you're the one that's advocating against membership in the LDS Church. Well, with the Miracle of Forgiveness...

You used the Miracle of Forgiveness, you used... The book is mocked by Latter -day

Saints. Yeah, yeah, because it's got... But if you go to the LDS Church Museum downtown Salt Lake City, it's in a showcase depicting how good of a prophet he was.

No, we don't burn books. But it's showcased as a highlighted work. No, it's showcased as a book he wrote.

In a positive and favorable way. Okay, what does it say? Does it have, like, lights pointing to it, saying, this is the shit? It's for a

Latter -day Saint. You don't behave in, like, upstanding Latter -day Saints. I don't have to behave in a specific way. But online, your behavior's been very abusive.

Well, I'm sorry that a sign saying, this is the shit, trying to emphasize whatever it is you're saying about the positive light that's supposedly in the

Church History Museum surrounding the Miracle of Forgiveness. The book sold 5 million copies. So? And it impacted a whole generation pretty spiritually deeply.

Okay, and? There's people that had very profound spiritual consequences for reading that book or having that book sort of enforced on them.

Right. So, my larger point... And the Church did that. The Church fed into that, yeah. Yeah, the

Church did it. I mean... The Church told everybody to read Miracle of Forgiveness. Literally at General Conference. Yeah, okay. They recommended

Miracle of Forgiveness multiple times from the pulpit of General Conference. And now what's wrong with it? Well, modern

Latter -day Saints take great issue with many of the teachings in the book. And why would that be? Because they disagree with them.

Why would it be? First of all, because it was a stream of perfectionism. It taught a, to be clear, to be modest in my claims, it taught a repentance that leads to forgiveness which was unrealistic and not sufficiently gracious.

Oh, okay. It taught a model of repentance that required... I disagree with that characterization. I've read the book several times.

I don't agree with that. Just pinpointing, it taught six steps to repentance. And he said one of those steps was successfully and permanently removing even the urge to do said sin from your life.

Such that if you continue to have the urge to do it, you are not yet complete with the process that brought forgiveness.

Right, right. And that's consistent with LDS theology today. Really? Yeah. So, there...

Well, hold on. Hold on. There's a sinful habit in your life. If there is a sinful habit in your life, you cannot be forgiven for it until you've completely...

No, I'm sorry. Forgiven is not... So, we don't have your same paradigm with respect to forgiven. Forgiveness is a process of sanctification where the sin is actually removed.

Sanctification is the process of removing the sin. Would you distinguish at all... Actually changing the person. Sorry to cut you off. Would you distinguish at all sanctification from forgiveness?

I know they're coupled or they're distinct but inseparable in some sense.

I don't know if you guys have any kind of a... Where you help people through repentance? Sure. Okay, so somebody's got...

I've got a... What's an addiction that people have? We'll just say coffee.

Coffee. Well, that wouldn't... He wouldn't... Pornography. Pornography, yeah. Okay. So, somebody says,

I'm really addicted to porn. For some reason, I find it titillating or whatever. I watch a lot of porn.

It's a very common problem. So, I have a problem with that. What would you guys do? That's an excellent question.

Can we just turn debate mode off for just a minute or two on this? I'm not debating. I'm asking a question.

I'm not debating anything. Well, I know there's gonna be people watching this, and this is a real -life issue for a lot of people. When someone's addicted to porn, when somebody keeps falling on their face with porn, the solution's very counterintuitive.

The solution is, firstly, to go to God with your very imperfect repentance, your very weak faith, and receive the complete and free and immediate gift of forgiveness of all your sins.

It's essentially to be washed. And then you stop sinning. Well, you hope to, right? So, my counsel to a young man or older man who's trapped in porn is to keep going to the cross and keep being...

1 John 1, 9 says, If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us and to cleanse us of all unrighteousness.

Right. So, I would want someone to start... To forgive us and cleanse us, right? Right. So, start with the starting point of forgiveness.

Right. Namely, I am forgiven. I am completely justified. I'm adopted. I'm accepted.

I have the gift of eternal life. I have an eternal security. I have the gift of the Holy Ghost. And on that basis of having the gift of eternal life and the free forgiveness of sins, then from that, fighting the sin of lust.

So, not that I'm hoping to achieve forgiveness later on. I'm hoping to be fully sanctified.

So, the sanctification... Because the actual sin itself is destructive practically. Right. So, religion for me is all nonsense unless it's practical.

The sanctification won't actually happen in earnest if you are not first forgiven.

Why? So, in the Spencer W. Kimball paradigm in the miracle of forgiveness...

Right. ...forgiveness does not come until you've completed the sanctification process on that pattern of sin. So, what good does it do to give somebody a sense of you're forgiven.

You're going to keep watching pornography. I don't want to say that to him. No, I'm not going to. That latter part, no.

I'm going to say, go and sin no more. Fight with the power you have of having been forgiven and giving the gift of the

Holy Spirit. You can't tell them to use their own power. No, with the power of the Holy Spirit within them. The power of self -control and the freedom of forgiveness.

So, the same thing we believe in. Sprint forward on the basis of forgiveness. So, the same thing we believe in. That's not what Spencer Kimball taught.

Spencer W. Kimball was talking about recidivism. Right. I keep coming back to the same thing.

Right. So, for example, I come and I join your church and I'm... I don't know, you guys have some kind of born -again experience or whatever.

You guys have some kind of a feeling experience, something that drives you to Jesus, right? And then you accept

Jesus and you receive some... That born -again experience is typically... Thing, right. It's always wrapped up in the experience of being forgiven.

Usually it's tears and crying and emotions. I don't have a lot of those. But rooted in the experience of having been forgiven by a holy

God. Right, right, right. So, they feel like they've been forgiven, right? They are forgiven. And then they continue to sin. Well, I mean,

Paul says, wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death. Right, right, right. So, a drug addict addicted to pornography attends your church.

He continues to remain addicted to drugs and pornography. And instead, now he's using the group within the church to borrow money and to steal.

If he's repentant, there's going to be... And he's forgiven of all that. Well, if he's repentant, there's going to be a practical change of life. Right, right.

And so, there would be something that would occur that's positive. Fruits. That would reflect that he is actually being sanctified.

Amen. Right. And what I would say to young men trapped in porn is the only real long -term authentic...

But you see how... Finishing the sentence real quick, sorry. The only real authentic way and the final way to beat the power of lust in your life is to receive the free gift of absolute and immediate forgiveness and justification.

Why is that? Because the only... That doesn't make sense. Because the only way God will save a man is if he does it in a way that we can only boast in him and we can't boast in ourselves.

His power is on display. His forgiveness is on display. But that would be the case either way. I don't sanctify myself.

The desire to sin doesn't leave me because of my effort. Sure. It leaves me as a consequence of submission to God in a continual way.

Can I try to represent your view as I understand it? I haven't explained it to you, so I don't know what you'd be...

Well, then, please explain it more. I'm trying to guess what it is, maybe. I'm assuming that if I employ

God's grace, I'm sorry, receive God's grace to be sanctified, I can arrive at a state of forgiveness.

No. No? Okay. A state of sanctification where you're actually clean. Jesus' atonement is purposed to cleanse us.

Where does forgiveness fall into that process? It's... Beginning or end or during?

We don't believe in forensic justification, that there's just one time and Jesus steps in front of you and you're forensically justified and renewed because that gives people a false sense that they're fine.

And you see the decline. So, as a practical matter, what you're saying, you're saying from my religious perspective, telling people they're forgiven first and then change is the way you do it.

And that's counterintuitive, right? That's what you said. Essentially, the only way to finally break the power of sin is to first be forgiven for your sin by free grace.

Okay. I disagree with that. And I disagree with that because if I pronounce somebody forgiven and justified and that they are eternally secure in the heavens, what practical motivation is there for them to actually change?

Oh, it's a great question. I take it genuinely. One is to show gratitude. Well, it is a genuine question. I'm asking. Yeah, I receive it positively.

I think it's a genuine question that a lot of people have. In essence, what motivation is left if you're already forgiven?

Why pursue holiness at that level? One is because I'm bought with a price, because I have an identity in Christ, because He owns me, because...

You understand, Aaron. And I appreciate it. And I'm sorry for cutting you off. Because of gratitude. Yeah. Those are all subjective things.

Those don't, as a practical consequence, alleviate somebody from the actual act of being addicted to pornography.

Right? Your religious paradigm is such that you think that being told by a religious or ecclesiastical authority that you have received sufficient forgiveness, that you are now saved in the bosom of Christ, in the mind of the person who doesn't have any understanding of theology.

Would you say that most of the members of your church understand theology as well as you do? No, not equally. Yeah. They don't.

I can tell you that they don't. This is experience at a very simple level for Christians. I think one thing you said was maybe a good point, is that you said it's subjective.

And maybe I overstated the subjective aspect of it. I would say that the only way to receive the gift of the

Holy Spirit, who alone can bring true sanctification, who alone has the power to change me, the only way to receive the gift of the

Holy Spirit is to receive justification and forgiveness by faith only. So if I reject the gift of complete forgiveness,

I'm rejecting the Holy Spirit. And that's your theology, and I disagree with that paradigm. But finishing the thought, I can't fight lust successfully and finally, without the gift of the

Holy Spirit. But the only way to receive that free gift of the Holy Spirit is to receive forgiveness and justification by faith alone.

Apologies if I'm repeating. No, no. It's just... It's the cart before the horse.

It's the proverbial cart before the horse. The order really matters. Would you agree with that? No, you understand that that is a problematic theology.

Our church is trying to not fall into that trap. That's a trap. You are forgiven.

You are assured a place at the right hand of God as a result of your belief in Jesus. Amen.

Hallelujah, right? That would be the framework. Right. Now go and sin no more. That's beautiful.

But remember, as you sin, you're still saved. And you will sin, but you are still saved.

It's the premise behind the... And it doesn't matter that you're addicted to porn or drugs or whatever. In fact, you will continue to fail and fall into various sins.

Travis... But when you die, you are still saved. Travis, if I were to tell someone... It doesn't make any sense. If I were to tell a believer, you will still sin,

I'm not encouraging... But that's why LDS theology has a hierarchy of degrees of glory. I'm not encouraging that person to sin, and I'm not sort of encouraging them to go down the path of sin.

What I'm saying, though, is that in between now and death, as a fallen creature, because my sanctification is not complete, if I met a new believer, it was hour one,

I said, brother, your sins are forgiven, you're adopted, you are in Christ, you're united with Christ, you're forgiven, you have eternal life, you are, as it were, raised into the heavens, seated with Christ, you have eternal life, you have eternal security, now you're going to experience suffering, and you're going to experience sin.

But what's the purpose of the suffering? To make them more like Jesus. But as you experience your own fallenness, keep coming back to the cross, keep revisiting your...

What does that mean, coming back to the cross? It means you revisit... Use a non -theological principle for coming back to the cross.

You don't say to yourself, I received forgiveness initially by grace, but now

I have to receive forgiveness going forward by works, or by merit. You go back to the cross in the sense that you take hold of that same blood, you receive that same atonement, and you say...

Again, you're using theological terms, you're not using practical, apolitical terms. The prayer looks the same.

You say, Father, because you forgave, because you love me, apply that same love that you gave me day one, and completely overlook my sins.

Please, oh Lord, just for free, though I have not yet successfully rooted this bad habit out of my life.

You repent. You repent. You continuously repent. You keep coming back to repentance. Yeah, you keep repenting. Forgiven completely.

Not forgiven later when the repentance process is completed. So during the period of time between my initial born -again experience and my subsequent going to the cross in repentance, my status doesn't change.

Your legal status. Your legal status doesn't change. Can I just give you a quick metaphor? This is a beautiful metaphor. I've got two adopted daughters.

I adopted my daughters before I knew what they would be like. I adopted them essentially at birth. They are my daughters, and they didn't go from 0 % to 5 % to 10 % and so forth to my daughters.

They went from 0 % my daughters to 100 % my daughters. They went from not being mine to being mine.

When a person is saved, they go from being 0 % forgiven to 100 % forgiven. Yeah, I would agree with that.

They go from being 100 % condemned to 0 % condemned. They go from being not a child of God to being completely adopted as a child of God.

They go from not having any eternal life to having 100 % eternal life. So I can't go...

That's not something I... That aspect of it doesn't modulate. So my daughters, when my daughters do something bad in the household, when my daughters sin against each other as they sin against me...

I don't think it's important for a public video, but... I have a teenager and then a younger daughter.

But when my daughters sin against me, they don't lose the status of being my adopted daughters. But that doesn't work.

That's not God. You're not God. It's the analogy the New Testament uses. I know, but the analogy doesn't work. The analogy does not work because anytime you put

God as the parent or the whatever, whatever, everything changes. You cannot analogize it to a human experience.

Because He's God, I can only analogize that I can't equate it. Right. Okay, you can analogize it and not equate it.

Fine. So the problem with that is that in LDS theology, we enter into a covenant relationship with God through a specific act that we have been revealed by Christ.

So Christ gives us an act. We accept that act as a covenant and then we perform, according to the promise, the actions that He commands.

Okay? Those commands, those actions are transformative and they work in tandem with grace to change the person.

That is what Spencer W. Kimball was trying to communicate. People didn't understand it. And time has changed significantly over the last 40 -some odd years since he wrote that book.

So the problem with it is that... I know it's a different era. Yeah, and so the problem with it is in the 1950s and 60s, the world was very different than it is now.

So the church, a church, that is led by God, would have to conform to the linguistic and cultural understanding of the people in order to communicate these ideals to them in their own setting.

It's the reason why religion is becoming really unpopular across the world. Would it be controversial for me to say that in the late 50s going on into the 80s and 90s, the

LDS church was pretty explicit about the role of earning eternal life and meriting eternal life and proving yourself worthy of eternal life?

No, no, so the language... See, that's the thing is you're not a Latter -day Saint. You never have been, right? So having grown up in those eras,

I understood what they meant. I understood that they were not telling me to earn because I can't earn.

They use that language pretty straightforwardly. No, no, I understand what you're saying. Up until the 2000s. That's the problem.

And so what Christians who don't understand what's going on in the church as a practical matter are often putting back on us when they come out here and do this stuff is they're saying, so -and -so in 1964 said and so -and -so in 1989 said.

But what they're not doing is they're not trying to understand the confluence of language and how language changes over time.

Can I... let me... So the reason why I think the LDS church teaches essentially a merit system...

It doesn't teach a merit system. I would reject that as well. Wait, what is the...

How do I merit? Let me fill it out a little bit. I don't think that in order to argue the

LDS church as a merit system it would suffice just to find a singular quote that uses merit language. No, no, not quotes. I'm saying... I don't care what the quotes are.

Just filling it out. I would say... Our theology is merit -based is what you're saying. How do I merit? I would say there's three lines of evidence

I can think of. This is ad hoc on the street off the cuff, sorry. One is that in the classic

Latter -day Saint worldview... I don't want to stereotype you. I don't know where you're at on this. But in the classic Latter -day Saint worldview of teachings, historic teachings,

God was not always God and progressed into what he is today. Okay, well, in the... That's a really bad reading of the

King Paul sermon. It is a mainstream dominant view that was popularized by subsequent LDS prophets. It's usually what occurs...

So like your God never sinned shtick that you've done for years. So that's actually one of the first things that I thought was totally incoherent.

That was interviews with Latter -day Saints. I know, but what it was is it was gotchas. So, like, for example,

I've had a lot of discussions with members of Protestant denominator. How is that a gotcha?

I'm just curious. I can play gotcha with them really easy because they don't know anything. They don't understand theology on a deeper level.

They have no idea what the biblical cosmology is. They don't understand the biblical text. They don't understand where they came from.

They have this very narrow perspective that the Bible literally was crapped out of the heaven by God and landed on an altar someday.

I don't think your rhetoric represents the best Latter -day Saint culture. No, no, no, no, no. What I'm saying is that that rhetoric is what

I often have reflected back to me in my Protestant... I think the way you depict what I'm saying is I know that that is not

Protestant theology. I don't hold them to that because that's nonsense. So, the gotcha idea...

Well, for example, just real quick. I had a Protestant the other day who was Reformed, and he said,

God literally wrote the Bible. Do you believe God literally wrote the Bible? I don't know what he means by literally. I went through a whole exercise...

He superintended the writing of Scripture through human authors. Literally, he says he removed the guy's consciousness, entered into him, and the person's hand was

God's pen. Right. That was his understanding. I've talked to Protestants who say very much the same thing.

Yeah. So, that's not Protestant theology. It's like a dictation view. Yeah, it's not Protestant theology. Generally speaking...

No, I would agree there's some Protestants that assume a dictation type view. But literally, I tried to get him out, and I said, look, man, so Paul didn't write it.

No, God did, through the Holy Spirit. Paul is not the author of any of his letters, which is problematic.

Where is she? Five minutes. Hannah, can you give me a little bit? Five minutes, darling. So, the point being is, is that that's their view.

Hannah, are you okay? Yeah, I'm fine. Is that okay? What's that? Um... Yeah. Yeah.

Go for it. Yes! Yes! Yes! So... So, the point being is, is that I saw your

God never sinned shtick. I'm so sorry. Hey, Hannah. Are you being... Be respectful, please. Are you good?

Yeah. Okay. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, yeah. I gave her a card to buy some sort of ice cream with.

I think they're on church property, so... Um, but the point being is, is that I know that when they're representing to me things that are not consistent with the established doctrine of Protestantism, I don't hold them to it.

Now, that... That's what you do. There's a... Can I respond to that? I think... I think the concern of a gotcha is a valid concern.

Can I say that? But a concern has more to do with minutia and sophistication and conceptual definitions.

Gotchas don't have to do with the basics. So, if I... If I said something like... No, they do.

Yeah, so what you're explaining in that paradigm is not basics. If I were to ask somebody, um, does

God sin right now? Right now? Uh, every... Can God sin? You could ask...

Yeah, if you asked every Christian... Can God sin? Can God sin? Every Christian would say no. Yeah, God... I would say that too. I agree.

Latter -day Saints... Well, it actually depends on... He never has and he never will and Jesus can't sin. He just can't.

Okay, well... How could he? If you were to ask a hundred Protestants, has

Heavenly Father perhaps ever sinned? Uh -huh. One hundred of them would say no.

Right. The point of my God Never Sinned project was if I asked a number of Latter -day Saints, was

Heavenly Father once perhaps a sinful mortal prior to his exaltation? They're using their reasoning and not theology.

About one -third of them would say no. Right. And two -thirds would either say yes or maybe or probably or we don't know.

But can I add on to that? What I think Travis's point is is that they are doing that in spite of LDS theology, not because of it.

Right. So the problem with it is the way you're framing your question is also problematic. So...

I'm connecting it to Lorenzo Snow Couplet theology. Right, which... As man is, God once was. Right. As God is, man may be. Why do you think so many

Latter -day Saints are okay with Heavenly Father having been a sinful mortal? Because they're lazy and they don't actually look at what the couplet is, they don't look at our theology, they don't read the scriptures very carefully.

The same thing with Protestants. It's why they get Protestant theology wrong all the time. You guys live in this world of we have the truth and you don't and the reason you don't is because when

I talk to members of the church on the street, they're not well -versed in the deep complexities of our theology.

Just to be clear though, the idea that Heavenly Father might have been a sinful mortal is not about being well -versed.

It is. It actually is. It's about having basic Christian beliefs and intuitions. Again, you're imposing your worldview on us.

We know what's important for us and that is not important. It's not significant. To be clear, whether Heavenly Father was a sinful mortal...

Well, he wasn't in LDS. But whether he was is not important. But is that salvific? Yes. Okay. You believe it's salvific.

I can tell you why. I understand why because you guys believe that somehow it represents God. Let me ask you, why do you think it's not important whether Heavenly Father was a sinful mortal?

Well, I don't believe that he is. But why do you think it's not important whether he was? Because how does that effectuate how somebody has a covenant relationship with Jesus in the manner in which he prescribed?

Because the only covenants that matter come from a God who was never sinful. No, no, again, again, right. Did Jesus sin?

Does any LDS person ever tell you that Jesus sinned? No. Okay. Does any LDS person tell you that Jesus is the

God of the Hebrew Bible? In a manner of speaking, yeah. That he's Jehovah. Yeah. And they don't believe he sinned.

Correct. And they're in a covenant relationship with Christ. I would be very careful to make sure people understood.

I'm not saying LDS teach or believe or speculate that Jesus was ever a sinful mortal. Right, right. That's what I'm saying.

Yeah, you know that. Right. So where the gotcha comes in is you're saying but above him is our

Heavenly Father and Lorenzo Snow Couplet and some misstatements from the King Follett Sermon and everything else

I can find. From Joseph Smith? Yeah. Joseph Smith misstated them? No, no.

The King Follett Sermon. He says in the sermon we have imagined and supposed. So you know what the King Follett Sermon is?

Well, I'll just quote a part of it for the viewers. No, no, no, wait. What is the King Follett Sermon? Tell them all. A general conference address that doubled as a funerary funeral, sorry, funeral sermon.

And how do we have it today? An amalgamation of four or five different accounts. Okay, yeah. And so how do we have it today?

What does that mean? It's an amalgamation of four accounts. The Church, through its authorized history, performed what was a responsible amalgamation.

Okay, and what is it today? I'm not sure what you're asking. What is its status in the Church today? I'm not sure what you're asking.

It's a canonized revelation? It's not in the standard works. And we understand completely what he meant?

Of course not. Yeah, right, right. Yeah. So my problem with it is is you're taking what to most

Latter -day Saints is an obscure passage. Not obscure. It's not. In the LDS manuals

Teachings of the Prophets How does it go? Teachings of the Prophets Learns of Snow they treat it as they basically treat it as revelatory.

The LDS Church manuals treat this I thought I'd love to complete is the LDS Church treats the

King Fault Discourse as one of the most pivotal sermons of history by its founding prophet. Who does that?

Who says that? I don't have an offhand source. So nobody It's not an obscure sermon. But what

I'm saying is that it is important. Smith himself didn't treat it like an obscure sermon. Smith himself died six weeks later.

But the way the manner in which he spoke about his own sermon elevated it to utmost importance.

You don't get to decide what is authoritative for Latter -day Saints. Then decide what is important for our theology.

And then dictate back to that to people on the street. That's for the church to do. And you're not doing your homework and actually representing correctly

LDS theology consistent with the way that members actually understand it. Have you read the document

I did on this project? I'm very careful. I talked about Like 15 years ago.

So I'm very careful to say the LDS church has no official position on whether Heavenly Father was once perhaps a sinful mortal.

We actually don't believe he was. Well the we there is So where does it say that we have no official or whether he was a sinful mortal?

Because the King Follett sermon specifically says that he was not. The King Follett discourse says

The King Follett discourse specifically states that he was not. Not what? That that that he was not a sinning sinful mortal in the way that you represent the people on the street.

Yeah that's not. No it actually does. I feel like we're It literally does. I feel like we're No it literally does.

That it's not It does not represent the Father of Jesus Christ as ever being a mortal capable of sin.

He never indicates that that's even a possibility. In fact he refutes that idea specifically. What you're not understanding is what is

I think we're moving too fast and I'm not smart enough to move at this pace. I know. And it's so The idea is is that in the

King Follett sermon he is addressing what principle specifically. Okay look can I distinguish the original text of the sermon as reconstructed

There's no original text. Well I mean as as reasonably reconstructed through the amalgamation there's the Which is why it's not dominant cultural reading and then there's the reading as it's been kind of carried through the prophetic tradition and then there's the common reception of the earliest people of the sermon.

So I've done some study on this One more thing the sermon in the grove What you're representing as as the common reading is the statement that is often abused out of context by opponents to the church reflected back to people who've never read the entire sermon

Which one is that? and not given any context and that's the one that you'd imagine to suppose that God was God from all eternity I'll quote it carefully

We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity I will refute that idea and take away the veil so that you may see

It might be an ellipsis here but God was once a man as we are now and you have got to learn to be gods

Yourselves Yourselves the same as all the gods have done before you and in the context of what? What is the purpose of that sermon?

What is he teaching? To give hope for the future What is he teaching specifically? You'll have to fill that out for me

Right So what he's teaching is on because it's a funeral sermon What would be the most common topic for a funeral sermon?

Afterlife, death Hope, resurrection Yeah So what his purpose is he's saying because prior to that a year prior to that we had section 130 of the

Doctrine and Covenants that clarifies that God has a body a flesh and bone the same as Christ does Right Okay So in that context

Latter Day Saints are not understanding how he obtained to that body Joseph Smith in the

King Follett sermon describes that he entered into a mortal experience the same as Jesus Christ did

Can I read that part of the King Follett? And that's literally all he says And so what you're not doing is you're not working through the sermon with Latter Day Saints that you talk to for the purposes of saying look here's two opposing readings of the text

Can I restate maybe the issue that you made that's satisfactory to you Within Latter Day Saints thought there's two different approaches to this text

Looking at There's looking at the relationship between the parallel between the

Father and the Son and then the Father and us Right So the question here there's a

BYU professor named Rodney Turner that once spoke to this idea that I don't know who that was He was speaking to this idea that What does he teach?

He's dead now I don't Oh look it up Yeah Rodney Turner If he taught math

I wouldn't care what he said But the idea is that there's a parallel between Heavenly Father and his children and their future and there's a parallel between Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ So the question is which of those do you privilege over the other?

If you privilege the relationship between Heavenly Father and Jesus you might have a framework that says Well we're going to Thank you

We're going to continue a pattern but not exactly like the pattern of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ It's more analogous

And the other says No Well Jesus was God before he entered into Right The other view says that Jesus is more exceptional and that for most who become exalted as gods they once were sinners

Right And so God's God's experience would also have been exceptional like Christ and would not have been indicative of an atonement because that was the role of the

Son In either framework some of the gods that are exalted as gods were once sinners And the question is whether our

Heavenly Father we were lucked out They're not sinners They're sanctified You don't believe that the atonement accomplishes its function

Well I don't know if you take this view but some people use that logic Because that's why some people view that God may have sinned

Right They believe the sanctification And that's why I don't Because I don't think that God would have benefited from an atonement Because he was

God He was already God Rewinding a bit In the godneversin .com project I very carefully outline that there are different Latter Day Saints approaches to this

And some take the parallel between Heavenly Father and Jesus as sort of the privileged parallel which outstrips the connection between Heavenly Father and his children

So the as man is God once was as God as man may be You can take that as we are becoming God like Heavenly Father became a

God Right Or you can say Well Heavenly Father got his body the same way

Jesus got his body as a sinless savior for a different set of worlds Okay Because there's

Again, theologically there's different ways in which God could have obtained a physical body as reflected in Sinlessly or perhaps

No, no, no Like He wouldn't have had to have been born Adam wasn't born He could have achieved that kind of mere divinity and premortality

No, no, no He was He was God before Which Heavenly Father? Yeah The Father and the

Son were God before they would have entered into any moral experience Because they had power in themselves to overcome death

They had power to They had power to stay death independently And they had power to succumb to death and then reverse the effects of death with the resurrection by raising with a glorified body

Do you take the Osler view that they were always Heavenly Father was always God I discovered Osler after I figured this out

But yes I would take the Osler view Yeah, it's not in literary dependence on him but conceptually you would agree that he was always

God Yeah, oh yeah So he never learned how to become God No You wouldn't learn how to become God Amen Godly But Jesus learned

Can you understand why Latter Day Saints God learns Can you understand why Protestants were very concerned that about two -thirds of the

Latter Day Saints we meet take the view that Heavenly Father Again but we already agreed that the covenant relationship is with the

God of Israel the God which Israel covenanted with who is Jesus in the flesh who we agree never sinned who is exalted by his

Father to the right hand and also makes a covenant relationship with us So your point of will

God sin it doesn't really enter into our framework and it's not something your average Latter Day Saint would even really think about So what you're doing is you're saying this weird thing that you haven't really thought about that could be a component of your theology you haven't really truthfully carried it through Two things

And then you're answering it independent of our church our authority and our theologians

Well two things One is I think that for Christians the question of whether God sinned and the question of whether it's important of whether Heavenly Father was ever a sinful mortal are not a matter of minutia or intellectual sophistication for believers

You can decide that for yourself It is an immediate intuition for all Christian believers that it's necessary that God never was a sinner

Right, right But secondly I've met Latter Day Saints that say I was talking to a Latter Day Saint two weeks ago over by the

Chinese restaurant and he was talking about how he didn't he took explicitly took the view of Blake Osler he did take that view and he said

Heavenly Father never was a sinful mortal but even if he was it wouldn't matter And so what

I would tell you is that from a classic Christian historic Christian point of view Which I completely think is not true Right, but we're not merely affirming that God never sinned

We're saying it's absolutely and utterly necessary that God never sinned Right, so from the perspective of what we view as an apostate philosophy

God never could have sinned Can you say it again? So from the perspective of what we view as an apostate philosophy we've reasoned that you can't believe that That's fine

That what? That you can't believe God may have sinned I don't personally think that that's even remotely possible

Why would that be apostate? Why would it be apostate to believe it's necessary that God never sinned? You guys are apostates

Objectively Why would you consider me an apostate? I'm sorry Because you believe in a closed canon Well, let me finish

Why do you think it's apostate or at least characteristic of apostate to believe that it's necessary that God never sinned?

Because anything you reason in consequence of a closed canon is your reasoning Do you think a closed canon is what gives us that?

You can't understand the Bible We have a closed canon The canon was still open 30 AD, right?

Presumably Both of us agree the canon was open 30 AD, right? But believers in 30 AD had every reason to believe

God never was a sinner They had no understanding of God the way you do Absolutely not

But they had every reason to believe even with an open canon that God never sinned and it was utterly necessary that God never sinned

Paul? Paul wasn't an apostle in 80 -30 In where? In 80 -30 80 -30?

I'm not trying to be I thought you said 80 -30 What are you talking about? I'm sorry You're talking about 30

CE I was talking about prior to the New Testament Sorry, I wasn't trying to throw you off Prior to the establishment of the

New Testament Right During the open canon They were Jews Believers already had reasons to authoritatively believe that it's absolutely necessary that God never was a sinner for silence

Well You're aware that's an argument for silence How so? So prior to 30 they were all

Mormons No, it's based on Old Testament Scripture No, it's based on your understanding and interpretation of Old Testament Scripture I would absolutely reject the idea that the

Old Testament people were not Protestant Do you think that the New Testament started to catch up? I wasn't processing both

No, it's fine I'm sorry What do the Israelites believe? That God never sinned and that it was

No, no, no, no Wait I don't think a single Israelite in good standing believed God was a sinner Okay What did they believe about God's?

They at least believed that the Most High never sinned and absolutely never sinned and never could have sinned they believed that?

Because of who God is and how he revealed himself No, no, no That's you reasoning Where do you explicitly find statements that indicate that that was their understanding?

He's holy He's the Most High And what does that mean? He never learned Again, again Attributing words and a definition to words that you think means a thing doesn't explicitly indicate what those words mean

Can I just quote some Old Testament scriptures for why You can I would believe faithful Jews I would say faithful Jews never believed that God was a sinner never believed that God could have sinned

That's just That's a That's completely absurd Psalm 90 verse 2 True Jews believed what

I believed That it didn't matter if Heavenly Father was a sinner? No, what I'm saying is I don't know that they would have considered such a proposition or thought about it

So if they hadn't thought about it do you think they would be able to receive revelation about it? So God sinned God destroyed the

Canaanites That's not sin He demanded murder That's not murder Okay, Jesus broke the law of Moses repeatedly

I don't think he did No, he didn't Right, again that's interpretation You're interpreting the biblical text in a way that mirrors your theology

Okay, hold on The Bible says in Psalm 90 verse 2 from everlasting I'm going to give you Let me give you a handful of texts

Again, Aaron the problem with doing that is that you're giving me a handful of texts that you interpret to mean something that I'm going to disagree with the meaning

Then interpret it for me No, no, no I'm not going to do that I'm not going to interpret the text for you because I'm looking at the larger framework of the text not the specifics

So there is a specific context into which these texts were written What is that? Well, can

I give you a handful of texts that would help sketch out a framework? No, you can explain what you're trying to do I can only do that here

I think faithfully by appealing to some texts Okay, so do you read much about Hold on, I'm going to finish that I'm going to finish that thought out

In Isaiah 40 God says that he was never taught the path of justice No one ever took him by the hand

God never learned He was never taught anything So that would exclude Jesus And his deity

Right, absolutely God never learned Again Hold on, hold on I don't want to be

No, no, no I just want to Competitive No, what I'm saying is Quick way of talking Your way of doing this is predicated on imposition of a theological framework

So That he never learned No That he's incomparable No, so for example That he's the first and the last

Jesus That he's the most high Though he were a son yet learned he obedience by the things which he saw In his humanity Right No, no, no

In his humanity is a theological construct He became flesh Based on the hypostatic union

John 1 Right, right No, again John 1 Doesn't say This is the hypostatic union

It says In the beginning was the word And the word was with God And the word was divine That's what it says So, what does that mean?

Well, it goes on to say He took on flesh Right, and the word became flesh Right, he was not flesh

And what does that mean? And then he became flesh And what does that mean? He took a human nature to himself No, but Where does it say that?

Well, he grew in grace and knowledge He suffered Where does John identify that he took a human nature

He died Thus indicating a hypostatic union He died Yeah, but that doesn't necessitate a hypostatic union

No, no, he didn't die His body died He says His physical mortal body I think Peter says in Acts You killed the author of life

Which means what? It means that the one who created all things died Okay, in what context did he die?

With his human nature Okay, again that is a theological supposition that you are imposing on the text

Surely you see that, right? I don't think it's imposed I think it's a reflection of all the text put together Yeah, it's a reflection of you cobbling together passages in order to extrapolate your own theology

A genuine question So, for example No, no, no, you're racing ahead too quickly No, no, no, hold on Do you think what's more plausible that the son took a human nature and died according to that human nature or that heavenly father it doesn't matter whether he was a sinful mortal in the past according to the

Old Testament text framework No, the appropriate question is not that that's a theological question that wouldn't even enter into the minds of those who are reading these texts

Faithful Israelites cared about whether heavenly father was a sinful mortal No, no, faithful Israelites Again, where are you getting that?

Faithful Israelites Who is the faithful Israelites? They believed what God revealed Okay, who are they? By name?

Are you asking that? Yeah, yeah, who are they? The Pharisees? The Pharisees?

It's a rhetorical question The Pharisees? They were characterized as a very ungodly group of people Okay, Sadducees? Also characterized as ungodly

The Essenes? Not even really mentioned in the Testament Yeah, so who? The people who took the word of God seriously and believed it and recognized

Jesus for who he is because they studied scripture Like the apostles who recognized him for what he is By faith

Fully understood Well, not immediately Right, they didn't have any idea what he was either Okay, hold on In John 8

Jesus says to the Pharisees I think No, in John 8 the author of John records that Jesus may have said but go ahead

In John 8 Jesus says This is why you cannot receive my word This is why you cannot hear my word because you cannot bear what

I have to say I think I'm paraphrasing a little bit In other words he goes on to say Your father is the devil

Right, talking to the Pharisees They're depraved They're rebellious Again, again But, hold on Did you say

John 8? Who's the devil? John 8 did not imply that Jesus Who's the devil? would have been a sinner Who's the devil? Too many rhetorical questions

Who's the devil in that context? You're going to have to fill out these rhetorical questions I don't know I'm asking you

He's the satanic figure of the Bible Which is who? The one who tempted Eve The one who was defeated in Revelation Where does it say in Genesis that he was tempted

The one who entered into Judas Where does it say in Genesis that he's the one who tempted Eve?

This is Genesis 3 I don't think you're actually reading the Bible I think you're reading what you think the

Bible says And you're walking away with passages that you think support what you think they say But you're not actually studying the biblical text

Just to be clear The serpent and Satan to you are not plausibly linked No, no, no I believe that because I have a means by which

I would have obtained that information from modern revelation Where did you get that idea? That Satan and the serpent

But the serpent in Genesis is Hasatan in Job Well, in the book of Revelation if I remember correctly this is an on the street off the cuff kind of ad hoc answer but they're linked

OK, so he says the serpent in Genesis is Satan I don't have I don't have a scholarly offhand answer for you

He doesn't say that To be clear in your view a faithful reading

Not my view Not my view Your position In your view I'm not trying to be I'm not trying to be cute here

I'm not trying to be I'm not either I'm not trying to pull one on you I'm just trying to accurately represent your position In your position as I understand it a faithful reading of the

Old Testament would not necessitate that Heavenly Father was necessarily never a sinner

I don't know where what passage you would cite to that specifically would articulate that May I please just give you a few passages

OK, give me a passage that specifically says in a pre -mortal existent life God, our

Father was not a sinner Would you please allow me just 45 seconds to give you some passages Go ahead Uninterrupted for 30 to 45 seconds

Isaiah 40 says that God is incomparable that He never learned Isaiah 43 Wait, wait

Hold on Uninterrupted for just 30 to 45 and I'll hand it off back to you OK Aaron, that's not OK, just 30 to 45 seconds

But you're not doing what you said What is the passage where does it say that specifically not

Aaron's interpretation of it where does it specifically say that because Can I make a case for you?

Yeah, make a case for that 30 to 45 seconds God never sinned A passage some prophetic writer or author of some text that said while God was yet in His mortal condition

He never sinned Can I give you a theological case from a set of texts OK Uninterrupted for just one minute

Fair? No, you would have to give me one text Can I give you Can I have a one minute uninterrupted and then hand the baton after you

You can give me a text from an author who explains that One specific text that you can't

I would like a minute I would like to connect some texts You can't I'm not going to let you do that because you can't

That is cobbling together authors to arrive at a conclusion that no one author reaches That's a problem

That's the problem Let me give you four or five texts and then you help me understand how you would think of them

Is that fair? There should be one that says it Would you agree with me? No, I don't think theology works that way That would mean no one audience for any of these texts understands what you do

There's an LDS position called divine investiture What does that mean? Have you heard of it? I'm not trying to got you

It's a view that Jesus is a plenipotentiary but He acts in the stead of the

Father So that is not necessarily proof -texted We don't rely on the

Bible alone because we don't believe in soul scripture Slow down The idea though is that even within Latter -day Saint theology not every doctrine is the result of a singular proof -text

It wouldn't need to be because we don't adhere to the doctrine of soul scripture Even if you expanded your view of scripture to include texts that are beyond the

Bible No, no, no Theology is not accomplished by proof -texting singular texts

Let me tell you what the Bible is The Bible is a collection of texts written anciently largely by unknown authors

So that's what it is So if you're saying it says something it would mean that one audience would have to have understood that without relying on a subsequent author or a prior author in their context

The reason why the doctrine of Trinity for example isn't found anywhere in the Bible soul scripture can't be found anywhere in the Bible because the ideas that Protestants rely upon are predicated on assuming a closed and completed canon that we can then go through in kind of a course study and pull passages out to support a proposition

Would you agree that theology ideally is mutually reinforcing meaning that the different parts of a theological framework are coherent and mutually supportive

No That would presuppose univocality I would hope that it's non -controversial

Is that my I don't mean that to be Like Isaiah could say something that Paul could say that's crap and it doesn't make sense

Okay let's just say you have a view of the fallibility of scripture Of course I do As you're doing theology

Because humans wrote it I'm going to ask you as a matter of personal decorum to slow down and let us complete our thoughts

I'm sorry if I'm interrupting you in a way that's not allowing you to do that but I think that we're going to have a more productive discussion if we have more extended thought here

This is not a gotcha That's called condescending by the way I keep getting accused of condescending

That's condescending But I think you've been It's not easy to talk to you I know and it's not easy to talk to you

I don't mean this to be controversial I get that You can just talk You can just say give me a second I'll give you a talk

I don't need a lecture Go ahead In Latter Day Saint theology even if you're presupposing a fallible text the idea of I'm not presupposing a fallible text

Here's a thought If you're constructing a theology I don't mean that negatively If you're developing a theology the idea is that your view of God your view of the afterlife and your view of salvation connect with each other

That the dots connect Presumably, yes In a systematic theology the hope or the ideal is that the different parts the different dots connect in a mutually reinforcing and coherent and mutually supportive way

Presumably So your doctrine of God affects your doctrine of Scripture and your doctrine of Scripture connects with your view of salvation

Is that fair? I'm not trying to be controversial there No Because my doctrine of Scripture is simply that Scripture is ancient documents written by people and I read their writings and I rely on God to do something with them in my life

Okay They don't have to be coherent They don't have to be consistent with one another Because I think

God uses broken and flawed things to accomplish whatever his purposes are So the point is is that the

Bible is fallible It is flawed You would say that about all Latter -day Saint scriptures Yes, of course

Absolutely And you would say that about all Latter -day Saint sermons Yes, absolutely All First Presidency statements Yeah All Temple ceremonies

Yeah, yeah, yeah All flawed That's why we're amending the Temple Endowment Ceremony Right Because we learn line upon line precept upon precept

You guys don't 2 ,000 years ago you decided God stopped speaking and now we can just interpret what he said 2 ,000 years removed from that historical context and he doesn't speak

Greek I don't speak

Greek I don't speak Greek I don't speak Greek I don't speak Greek Sorry, let me correct that thought

The The things that are only true of God Paul treated as true of Jesus So?

That's because they're one He treated them as distinct inseparable and yet God Because they're one

But that doesn't necessitate a trinity That's not the trinity It excludes quite a bit of theology Let me give you a little understanding

It excludes modalism Let me help you a little It excludes polytheism No, no, no, let me do that right, yeah Okay, so Tertullian did a good job excluding modalism

So, let's say this I'm Paul He's a a Gentile Pagan believes in lots of gods

The pagan The pagan is known as Zachary Wright His gods are they one?

No No Okay They're not But how many of them are there? I don't know A lot

Right Paul says God our Father and his son Jesus Christ Yeah How many gods are there?

One Okay But in the mind of Zachary how many are there? But the oneness of a social plurality does not hold a candle to the oneness of the

Father and the Son According to what text does he exclude the idea that there are Because Because the unity of the

Father and the Son is a unity Where did Paul explain it? Well, only God can create and Jesus created everything created

Where does Paul explain it? It sounds like you want you want a singular proof text No, no No, what

I want is I want the clarity that he thinks exists and you think exists that doesn't actually exist

Can I give you a one minute explanation? If it doesn't require you to dance around in proof text Well, you can decide whether I answer that You can articulate a doctrine out of one chapter from one author

Sure Names attributes works and worship

Those are the that's the framework There are names only appropriate to God Attributes only

According to who? Only appropriate Let me finish the thought Attributes only appropriate to God Works that only can be done by God and worship that's only appropriate to God Okay, and I disagree with all of those

And the way that the New Testament speaks of Jesus is that it attributes to him names and attributes and works like creation and then worship that you only should give to God And you're aware that that's a presuppositional circular theology, right?

No Surely you believe I'm not sure what you mean by that I've decided that God can only do certain things

Only God can do certain things And because Jesus also does them He is homo usus with the

Father Can you just dial the combativeness down I'm not being combative Three or four notches I actually can't

Okay, well So I can't I'm not being combative I'm not angry at all It seems like I am but I'm not

It's more productive when there's a bit I know what adrenaline is like and You don't think this is going to be productive, do you?

I actually do No, it's not going to be productive Because the problem with it is Again, you've demonstrated why

Everything requires a proof texting of verses When you say proof texting, what do you mean? You're going to go through a series of verses to support some theological position or doctrine that you hold

If it's a series and it's developing a theme it's not necessarily proof texting It is proof texting I'm asking you what do you think proof texting is

What it would require is it would require you to articulate a theological position from one author

From one author? One text? One author I don't think any doctrine of the

Bible Again, the Bible doesn't have doctrines because the Bible is a collection of texts

It doesn't have one doctrine or a doctrine of the Bible You can agree on that, right? No, I think there's a singular doctrine that results

Again, based on what? Can I explain it? Sure So, what

I was trying to kind of lay the groundwork earlier before was that in a theological system you hope to have the dots connecting the ideas mutually reinforcing

With the Bible having a singular divine author It doesn't Okay We hold that scripture interprets scripture

Okay, but it doesn't Okay have a singular divine author So, when I I'll give you a really clear example In Genesis 3

I think it's 15 forgive me I don't know the exact reference God promises that the serpent that the offspring would crush the head of the serpent

Right? Meaning what? What's that? Meaning what? Well, we learn later that this is Jesus that the offspring the

Messiah There's a continuous hope in the Old Testament that there's going to be an offspring someday and there's this developed promise a kind of stacking of covenant promises that this is going to be someone who blesses all the nations through Abraham He's going to follow in the line of David He's going to be born of a virgin

He's going to be a suffering servant He's going to be of the ancient of days So, when Jesus arrives we look back and we read

Genesis 3 15 and we say Wow! With the cross behind us and with the

Holy Spirit in us we now can go back to the Old Testament some total look at scripture and say the offspring that God had in mind that Moses didn't necessarily see with clarity but that God saw with clarity the object of Genesis 3 15 is

Jesus So, I'm letting scripture interpreting scripture precisely because there's a singular divine author

Let me finish with one more thing I can only really hold to there being a singular divine voice in scripture if I hold to monotheism

Monotheism makes that belief at least more natural If I'm a polytheist it's going to be much less natural to have that belief

Because the Israelites were In what sense? They believed in other gods Meaning? In many cases

They were not strictly monotheistic That's why they were exiled They were not strictly monotheistic ever

That's why the first commandment is Thou shalt have no other gods before me They were rebellious people, right?

That they broke a covenant with their god does not negate that they believed in and recognized the existence of deities that controlled and occupied other lands

When you say deities do you mean most high gods who never learned? I mean gods Again, again you're imposing that theological position on them and believing that it's correct because of words like holy and he doesn't learn

That's what you think Well Again your theological framework is not based in reality

It's not a It's not a win for Mormonism that you find other beings I'm not trying to win

Mormonism Sure The thought is to find other beings called gods in the

Old Testament is not a win for polytheism It's not a win for polytheism because it's just an identifiable reality of those people

The kind of monotheism There's a really important thought Let me finish it out The really important thought here

The kind of monotheism that Judeo -Christianity affirms Again Let me finish the thought

There's only one most high being who is incomparable never learned is the first and the last

There's none beside him none before him none after him One final thought The end of Romans 11

Paul says Who has ever known the mind of the Lord or who has ever been his counselor Who has ever given

God a gift that he might be repaid Meaning what? For from him and through him and to him are all things to him be the glory forever

Meaning this In Paul's theology there's only one God who never had a tutor

Only one God who is absolutely inscrutable There's only one God from whom all things through whom all things and to whom all things are and there's only one

God to whom is owed all glory You can't say that about any other God Which is not Jesus Which is

Jesus Literally in the chapter 9 two chapters earlier Again He treats

Jesus as God himself Again That's the problem You are You are so fueled by a presuppositional lens

You can't put yourself in the first century as the audience of Paul You can't do it

You are burdened by 500 years of Protestant theology that you are reading back into texts that don't support it

Even the history of Christianity doesn't support modern Protestant positions Do you think So here's the problem

With respect to your idea of Jesus crushing the head of the serpent Okay That could be articulated by a later author

But again the point would be proven and articulated by an author who is relying on an older text and describing it in some way

Again These can't be positions where the Galatians and the Romans and the

Ephesians and all these different congregations throughout the Christian world are reliant on knowing I have to have

Genesis through Malachi and I have to have Matthew through Revelation in order to understand

God's Word I don't I'm not That's literally what your position would have to be

Is it your understanding that we need the New Testament to explicitly interpret Genesis 3 .15

or some future revelation? Yeah If you're going to say the serpent is

Satan Yes There's nowhere in the Biblical in the whole Hebrew Bible that identifies the serpent as Satan Is the offspring

Jesus? Is the offspring of what? Genesis 3 .15 Where does it identify as Jesus?

Where does anybody identify Jesus in the Hebrew Bible? Do you think sum total from the

Bible Again Aaron That you can include that the offspring is Jesus You guys claim the

Bible is clear and we just don't get it On monotheism

Yeah That God never was a sinner absolutely by necessity What you don't do is you don't understand the text in their very historical context

You don't teach it to your people You don't understand it yourselves What you do is you cobble together meaning out of a series of texts that no one group had and then you say well they should have understood it by doing a survey of Genesis to Revelation Nobody would have had that The only thing that is consistent in the biblical text is the fact that God called a leader to identify and articulate to the people what they should believe and what they should do

There's no And largely that was done orally Can I ask you Not in writing Do you think that there's any consistent view of who

God is in the Old Testament No There's not In the New Testament No You have to In Latter Day Saint Scripture You have to rely on a subsequent revelator which we would call a seer to understand those texts

Do you think that your prophets have given a consistent picture of who God is Yes Adam God Well I don't think that's doctrine

I don't think that he was speaking So when you say the Latter Day Saint prophets have given a consistent view of God You're only referring to his canon or No, no, no

So in what sense is it inconsistent Well you've already said that Adam God You've already said

Latter Day Saint Scripture does not Adam God is consistent with what Hold on a second You've already said Latter Day Saint Scripture doesn't give us a consistent view of who

God is What is Adam God The teaching that the one who impregnated Mary The one teaching that Our Father in Heaven is

Adam himself The idea that Adam brought one of his wives who was Heavenly Mother Okay, okay

Alright So what's wrong with that doctrine Well your leaders condemn it Right Spencer Kimball called it a false doctrine

We subsequently reject that idea Right It was poorly developed It was false doctrine

It's not false doctrine It's not understood doctrine And the scholarship on this is robust So what you're doing is you're asking

Again, it's the gotcha question No, no, no You're asking the I think you're out of touch with what your own scholars teach on this No, no, no

What you're I'm not So what you're out of touch with is you pull things episodes and you spit them out and people on the street don't know what you're talking about And you don't either

Did Adam come to the Garden of Eden with a resurrected body No That's what Brigham taught Okay, so what

Was Adam the Father of our spirits Did President Nelson teach that But Brigham taught it Did President Nelson teach that No, your claim was that we don't understand it

No, did President Nelson teach that Of course not Right, okay So, did the author of Genesis teach

Hold on, no, no, no Brigham taught No, did the author of Genesis You're moving on from this as fast as you can

No, I'm not moving on Yes, you are I'm not moving on The prior question I asked you was Has scripture

Bible or LDS scripture Bible's not consistent Has LDS scripture expansively speaking given a consistent picture of who

God is You said no Yeah I asked Have LDS prophets given a consistent picture of who God is And you said yes

And then you negotiated that really quickly Then you identified a doctrine in cultural context that was not

So you tell me Or by the In what sense have LDS prophets given us a consistent view of who God is How is authoritative revelation determined in the

LDS church I'm asking you No, I'm How have LDS prophets given us a consistent view of who God is You said yes

Because they have universally across time since Joseph Smith taught a consistent message Namely Okay Again So Brigham Young agreed with your view that No, no, no, no

Brigham Young had a very different view than Wilson Pratt Again, again How is doctrine in the church authoritatively determined That's a separate question

It's not a separate question Bruce R. McConkie Joseph Fielding Smith Brigham Young have their own ideas about stuff

So when I ask you What you're thinking is you're thinking that when somebody is the president of the church they have to speak infallibly and that's not true

So the question for you is I genuinely want to know And when he taught which he taught abundantly he taught consistently and the

LDS members understood him consistently In what sense have Latter Day Saints taught Sorry In what sense have

Latter Day Saints prophets taught a consistent view of God You affirmed that So in what sense is that true

We have a father and a son and a Holy Ghost They've taught more than that though They've taught that he wasn't always

That was not Brigham Young's view Okay, again Your nuanced understanding of specific documents isn't relevant to how

Latter Day Saints understand and interact with their leaders What documents are you thinking about when you say

Latter Day Saints prophets have taught a consistent view of God What sources are you thinking about All of it They're public sermons

Yeah, all of it So you think in the public sermons of Latter Day Saints prophets they've taught a consistent view of who God is No, no, no

Not the public sermons Again I'm asking you In what sources or what Again, that's why

I'm asking you How do Latter Day Saints determine whether or not something is authoritative They have different models of authoritativeness

What's the model of authoritative What did Joseph Smith teach Can I give you a thought on this

No, you can give me the doctrine There's different views within Latter Day Saints theology of what constitutes officiality

Can you just let me complete a thought Your thought is going to build and that's why

I keep cutting you off If your thought's going to be built on a faulty premise No Because that's not consistent

Latter Day Saints have different attitudes about stuff we already addressed over an hour ago because just like Protestants lots of people just don't understand their doctrine

Latter Day Saints prophets have had different views of officiality Latter Day Saints prophets have different perspectives on lots of things but that doesn't make them authoritatively binding on the church or mean that the

LDS members understood it that way So help me out In what sense do you think Latter Day Saints prophets have taught a consistent view of who

God is? I just said Help me out maybe I didn't process it Repeat it for me We believe that the

Father read section 130 verse 22 So they've always taught that Heavenly Father didn't become a

Father That he was always Heavenly Father and never had to become a Heavenly Father Yes That that didn't happen upon spirit birth of the first spirit child

I'm sorry You know that we don't believe in Pre -Actio Ex Nihilo right? Right So why are you proposing a question that's absurd in light of that understanding?

Can I give you a 30 second answer? Sure There are different Latter Day Saint views on pre -mortality affirming or disaffirming spirit birth

Hold on, hold on And if you hold to spirit birth there's a sense in which sons become sons and the

Father became a Father at the first spirit birth Yeah, and how does that work? That would be a question for Latter Day Saints Yeah, right

Okay And I'm not going to tell you Okay So here's the problem with that And again

I get this a lot You guys believe Jesus is a created being because they confuse us with Jehovah's Witnesses and like you they believe that God had sex with a spiritual wife in a pre -mortal existence and created

Jesus Some Latter Day Saints hold to that That is not LDS That's theology and that's the problem

Some Protestants hold to all kinds of nonsense Most of the time when I ask them to explain the Trinity it's modalism

They use a modalistic framework because that's how they understand it Usually Yeah, it's mostly that And so the problem with it is that you're saying because this guy who

I talked to on the street didn't understand it that way that's not how Latter Day Saints understand it No, this would not be based on a singular person

But you know the church rejects the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo Sure So does that mean Jesus could be a being that was created?

Can I give you a 30 second answer? Sure So I would not say that LDS culture or doctrine or institutional manuals or history teaches that Jesus was created out of nothing

But what I would say is that one of the key claims that Arius made in Arianism that there was a time when the sun was not

Is there a sense in which that is true in Latter Day Saint theology?

I would say in two minor ways One is by minor I mean some Latter Day Saints hold to Brigham Young's view that you had your genuine beginning at spirit conception and that you're not in eternal intelligence

What does that mean? It means that there was a time when you were not there was a time when Jesus was not Ok, again

Hold on, in the second view is that even if you believe that you're in eternal intelligence and you had your spirit birth and Jesus gave you your spirit body there still was a time even in that framework where the sun was not yet the sun

That's true That's absolutely true, in that framework it is You might have a different framework I have a correct framework

In what sense was the sun eternally the sun prior to his spirit birth? What does spirit birth mean? Spirit conception

What does spirit conception mean? It means heavenly father and heavenly mother How did Joseph Smith describe that?

He didn't, it was developed by Brigham Young and further So, what is the conditional difference between intelligence and spirit in the

Doctrine and Covenants? They're synonymous in the Doctrine and Covenants Right But not in later

Latter Day Saint theology Right In the development of B .H. Roberts theology and sort of building on Brigham Young and others there was a negotiated

There was attempts to understand There was a kind of convergence of views Yeah, there were There were rejected attempts to systematize our theology which were constantly rejected

Yeah, and take this as a good faith expression We can't have a systematic theology Well, I mean, if I wanted to, take this for what it's worth

In order to faithfully and accurately Which you're not doing Hold on, in order to accurately represent

Latter Day Saint thought You're not My best effort to do that would be to talk about the different historic LDS views

It's not though, that's the problem is that what you're doing is you are saying this is somebody and this is somebody and this is somebody

Okay? That's fine But that is not how Latter Day Saints understand it What you're trying to do is you're trying to say

I've talked to some Mormons and they think this and I've talked to some Mormons and they think that And I've read this scholar who's written this paper on this and I've read this

If it was only that you'd be right to critique But what I'm saying is that we should take Latter Day Saint history

Latter Day Saint teachings from LDS authorities No we shouldn't I think we should take the whole package

I know but And try to accurately represent Latter Day But that's not consistent with our theology or our understanding or our practices or how we work

Do you believe there's a Heavenly Mother? I do, yeah Is that in your canon? No Okay, do you restrict official doctrine to what's in the canon?

I don't believe that's official doctrine Right, so okay this is a really great example here

If someone asked me Hey Aaron, I just moved here to Utah Do Latter Day Saints believe in a Heavenly Mother? If I said yes would that be fair?

I wouldn't care if you said yes or not Okay, but if somebody said Hey Aaron, don't say yes because it's not official doctrine

Why would you say we believe that? Because of the sum total observation of how How would you understand that why would we believe in a

Heavenly Mother? Because of the whole system What is the basis for believing that there would be a Heavenly Mother? Because of a combination of what

Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and subsequent prophets taught What is the theological underpinning of believing

Can I give you a 15 second answer without wanting one -liners? Is that like a tactic or something? No, it just seems like you cut off too early

I want you to be able to give full thoughts too You start off with something that's like nonsensical and then you build on it but I have to stop you there because I can't let you build on something that makes no sense

I genuinely think it would be more respectful and if I've done If I've violated this to you I'm sorry

I'm not concerned with that I genuinely think it would be more respectful if you let me complete a thought That's fine Go ahead and complete a thought If I wanted

If it was a fellow evangelical saying Why would you say Latter Day Saints believe in Heavenly Mother? I would say Well, it started with the latest teachings

Why wouldn't you just direct them to an LDS source Let me complete the answer

I would say Well, it started with Joseph Smith His later teachings such as found in the

Kingfault Discourse and the way that theology developed with Brigham Young and subsequent prophets has sort of led to a more or less standard

LDS theology that you'll find in their public statements and one of the best ways you can kind of get a quick summary of LDS teaching today is to read a manual that they use internally

It's been published multiple times republished It's called Gospel Principles And you know what the better way to do it would be? Hold on In Gospel Principles they explicitly affirm

Heavenly Mother and even though you can't find it in its canon, even though some Latter Day Saints say it's not official, it's fair and accurate they get to say

Latter Day Saints believe in Heavenly Mother But why is that? You haven't articulated your reasons

Why? What? Sorry Again, that's my problem. You guys don't Why is that? I didn't hear another question Why would we believe that there's a

Divine Feminine? Because of your greater worldview and how the dots connect Because of a gendered view of the gods a gendered view

I think some Latter Day Saints would even say a gendered view of the intelligences Right, we don't believe in a distinction between God and humans in kind That's true, but that's not official doctrine

No, no, that's actually what we believe in We don't believe there's a distinction between That's not explicated in your canon

By the strictest LDS standards of officiality what you just said is not necessarily true It's a genesis

That God and man are of the same species So not every Latter Day Saint agrees with that It's not necessarily

Find me a Latter Day Saint that doesn't and tell them to call me because I would love to find him I've been a member for a very long time and I've never met one that didn't

So explain to me how they work that out Well, in this view it starts to sound a little bit more like Ostler, but in this view

God has always been God Do you do this with your own theology? Do you say in this view and this view and this view? Well, I have to, yeah

Do you explain that we believe in a doctrine called

Sola Scriptura that can't be coherently found in the biblical text and we believe in a doctrine of a trinity that's also not articulated anywhere in the biblical text

Do you do that? Or do you engage in the presuppositional type discussion that you've been doing?

There's three sources I try to draw from that help me converge on doctrine, right?

One, Scripture and that is to be the most authoritative and final word Which would be your interpretation of Scripture My aim is to have as high of a view of Scripture as Jesus did

The second and a subordinate source that's not the same level of Scripture would be Christian history and what I mean by that is when

I read Scripture I want trusted Christian authors throughout Christian history essentially to be on my shoulder

I want to read in community with other Christians So there's historical theology, there's interpretation of the scriptural text and there's what's called systematics and that's just reflecting on how the ideas of Scripture come together

So what I would say is that in Latter -day Saint what I would encourage my Latter -day Saint friends to do is when you're thinking about your own theology is to try to do all three

What does the original text mean? What have our leaders taught over the history?

There's different attempts to do this by Terrell Givens or Charles Harl where they talk about the development of different ideas within LDS history and then there's attempts at doing systematics just connecting the big ideas and how the big ideas are mutually reinforcing

This isn't even a criticism, I'm just saying for Latter -day Saints to mature in their theology just as Protestants mature in their theology, every single one of those all three of those they matter

So I would want Latter -day Saints I would want Latter -day Saints to be extremely clear about a historical development of what your own leaders have taught

So is Adam God a part of that story? Yes Does that necessitate that y 'all believe in Adam God today?

No Are there different views of spirit birth and premortality and the Holy Ghost and Heavenly Grandfather and no

Heavenly Grandfather? Yeah, there's different LDS attitudes on that but for me to accurately represent Latter -day

Saint theology and thinking Which wouldn't be your responsibility would be to articulate your theology in an attempt to try to converge and to help somebody to understand what they're supposed to be replacing what they believed with which you don't do

I would want Latter -day Saints to understand their own theology well enough but I would want you to understand Christian theology Here's the end result

So what happens is for example if an LDS person leaves and joins your church right?

They don't know anything So what they start doing is they start merging LDS ideas that make sense into Protestant ideas that don't

Initially Yeah I mean I don't think they don't make sense No and they continue to do that Well I mean when someone becomes an

Evangelical from a Latter -day Saint background there's years of sort of brainwashing Paul says be transformed by the renewal of your mind

Right, they have to be convinced of certain You learn to rethink things Yeah, they have to be convinced of the presuppositions that are required in order to reach the conclusion that they're supposed to reach

Right Okay, well I mean So for example the Bible is

God's word and then they're like well that's what Latter -day Saints believe is the Bible is God's word but here's what that means from a

Protestant perspective Sure, yeah It means it's the sole exclusive infallible rule of faith And then God himself

Wrote it He inspired the very words Right, yeah He wrote it He wrote it in the sense of superintending all the words to be exactly what he wanted them to be

Except that they're written in Hebrew and Greek and we don't have those texts We have a sufficiently reconstructed

Right, according to text of the original According to the opinions of various scholars According even to some Latter -day Saints scholars

So actually your framework is this This is what's interesting about your framework as you described it Give me the three steps of your framework again

So there's the authoritative text of the

Hebrew and Greek and also to be able to understand and articulate the context into which those texts were written which would require attending an academic setting and to be instructed sufficiently so that they understood how ancient

Israelites viewed their surrounding paradigm Then you would have to go into the second century and understand what the

Greek pagan Roman perspective was with respect to how

Paul interacted and engaged with them Then you'd have to understand Greek and then you'd have And after you've done that then what?

Well hold on I think that's a I think a person Surely you're not telling somebody that they can pick up a

King James Bible and just read it and understand it Okay I've got to give you a 15 second answer on that one

With respect to the things necessary No no no I want to answer this Again you don't get to decide

I actually really want to answer this What's necessary I want to answer this With respect to the things necessary to believe for salvation

Yes A person can Just pull open the Bible and just believe it They can take a

Even if they have a wrong view of Jesus They can take a Bible written in the vernacular of their common speech and they can read it and get to know the person of Jesus At the end of John it says these things are written so that you may have eternal life

Again that's presupposing you understood what John meant which is not what he meant The Bible tells us what we should believe

So I would say one of the most beautiful things about the Protestant Reformation was that it had an optimism that if the

Bible was translated into the vernacular and people would read it there was a plain sufficiently plain meaning at least with respect to the things necessary to believe for salvation that is accessible to the common person

It's not though It can't be Linguistically, culturally, historically it cannot be accessible to them

It can't be They would have to understand the cultural and semantic context into which those texts were written to the people they were written

Honest question for you At the end of John it says, like I said earlier, these things are written so that you may have eternal life, that you may believe in the

Son of God and by believing in his name you have eternal life That you may have eternal life Honest question Why do we need anything but John?

Well, I would say that if all you had was John and you were in a prison cell and you read the Gospel of John you could become a

Christian and you could know Jesus I would agree with that, absolutely They're not experts though, they don't know it

That's not your three -fold thing So again, you have the

Gospel of John Let's limit it to that I have the Gospel of John and I read it and I understand it and that is sufficient for me to be saved

Man, there's been so many people who have done just that They've read the Gospel of John and become believers Okay, yeah

Believers in what? In the Jesus of the Bible and they've had their sins forgiven But they don't believe in the Jesus of the Bible, they believe in the

Jesus of John The Jesus of John is the Jesus of the Bible, right? It's the

Jesus that's presented by the author of John That kind of Like if I don't know in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was

God, right? What does that mean? Well, honest answer With just the

Gospel of John Honest answer, if you just keep reading John you get a better idea of what that means Yeah, and if you read John chapter 14 it doesn't mean that they are homo usus

Right? You'd have to flesh that out Yeah, so I don't think

John 14 negates There's no Trinitarian theology in John So if I don't believe in a

Trinitarian theology Let's say that I don't I don't know anything about Trinitarian theology What I read is a father with a son

A father who is speaking to a son in prayer in supplication Yeah A father who raises his son in glory

Yeah to sit at his right hand Absolutely Okay, and then I walk away and I think co -substantial homo usus

I don't think No, you wouldn't To be clear I don't think believers in the Trinity originally had precise theological language for the

Trinity They didn't understand it the way the Protestants believe is required in order for us to have the same Jesus Do you think that So do you believe that understanding the nature of Jesus specifically is required for salvation

Not with precision Okay, so I can believe that Jesus is simply a guy that was sent by God the

Word made flesh whatever that means and he was and he came in and he did some stuff and he taught some stuff he died on a cross and he was resurrected and I believe that I preached a sermon on this question

I think three weeks ago I forget how long ago and the way I described it was that when most believers start out they just start out believing that there is one

God and Jesus is God so it's not natural at all it's not it's virtually impossible to find

I'm not talking about most believers hold on it's virtually I don't think you could find a genuine believer who would say that Jesus was like you said just a guy

I think that when you discover the resurrected Jesus when a saved genuine believer so Unitarians aren't saved genuine believers?

I don't think Unitarians are saved no but when someone genuinely when someone genuinely comes to know

Jesus they immediately have the impulse to worship him they bow down and worship

Jesus but he said to worship his father what did they do after the resurrection? they worship him what did they do in Revelation 5?

with the Lamb of God standing as a slain you're talking about after he had been exalted he was worshipped or made

God he wasn't made God again that's presupposing I'm just talking about John sure in John Jesus is worshipped so what

I'm saying is that if you were to take me to someone and they understand now that Jesus is a separate

God or the same God as his father or in what context is he God? because I just have John yeah there's one

God in John ok I don't think a genuine believer is going to say that there's many gods in that sense again that's your catchall statement a genuine believer a genuine

Israelite a genuine this they believe what I do you don't see how same language self -defeating that is but not the same ideas yeah and so the problem with that is is that you're not articulating that a theological position that is overriding and systematic that everybody must believe in order to be saved because that's what you're advocating you're advocating if somebody doesn't have a systematic understanding of theology no that's not what

I'm saying I'm not saying that no I think that's a misunderstanding then why do you tell us we have a different Jesus? because you teach a different Jesus like in what way?

because he did not organize all the things organized I actually don't know if you personally believe that what does that mean?

that Jesus didn't create all things created he didn't even organize everything organized creatu ex nihilo is not a biblical concept so Jesus is not responsible for the creation of everything created even if you limit that to organization in the classic latter day saint framework he didn't even organize everything organized because of other worlds under other gods and other generations of the gods where does it say that in LDS theology?

in the king fault discourse again sermon in the grove again the church has been very clear that that is not our doctrine we don't have enough authoritative sources to make that our doctrine what you're doing is it's pharisaical to fall back in the idea of officiality no it's not absolutely because your prophets are responsible for more than just officiality so who can

I go to as the authoritative source of protestant theology? the bible no who can we go to for the authoritative source of LDS theology?

the bible that's not even true by your own standards it is true the bible no earlier in this discussion you talked about how it's no no you're mistaking the frameworks from your framework that's your framework not mine your framework requires objectivity because that's what you're claiming so for example again we can systematically study the bible what was the second component of the three?

when I mention those three categories that's for responsible maturing theology it's the authoritative text of scripture interpreted in community with the historic church systemizing the big ideas okay systematizing okay so who systematizes which you all should get together and decide it's not by pronouncement there's no fiat there's no fiat it's not by pronouncement there is a what's called a subordinate authority given to the church by the holy spirit to reflect upon scripture because you know what's missing in those three god he's in all three no he's not he can't be he interprets the text of scripture infallibly you're he he gave the church the holy spirit he sent the holy spirit and gave the gift of the holy spirit and every believer so the church is the pillar and foundation of truth it's moved by the holy spirit it's protected by the hold on the church is shepherded by king jesus god's involved in that and then there's the systematizing systemizing where believers are reflecting upon scripture with the holy spirit in community going back to scripture because scripture interprets scripture using the guardrails of scripture using the authority of scripture you don't think believers have the authority to try to connect the dots of scripture no no they don't did paul say all of you believers have the authority to connect the dots did paul say that did paul tell his congregations that they had the authority to just figure it out jesus held people accountable for doing that jesus wasn't there did paul tell his congregations that they had the authority to figure it out paul said all scripture is god breathed and profitable for reproof for righteousness for training for rebuke and jesus held people accountable for putting scripture together and making some total evaluations on the big ideas but jesus held people accountable to things that were not explicated did paul offload the responsibility how's it going i am how's it going man so did paul give the authority to interpret the scripture to his to his believers paul didn't give authority to anybody so did paul have authority to do it as a believer to start with and as an apostle okay so as an apostle he had authority specifically and uniquely to declare the word of god to his congregations yes or just whenever they didn't want to do it themselves i'm not saying that the interpretations that systemize scripture are to be pronounced as scripture as though i know you don't because you can't okay well do you think that latter day saints have any sort of authority to think about and reflect on and piece together the big ideas about your own prophet yes but they can't believe distinct and different from the church the church meaning the collective witness of the church the apostles the apostles pronounced doctor how in a variety of ways so i asked you earlier and you affirmed that the lds prophets have taught a consistent view of god no no you're misstating what i said what did you say so what i said is what is we what is the actual authoritative way in which the church affirms official declarations about i straight up asked you does the bible portray a consistent view of god you said no question that's not relevant to the actual thing that we do i straight up asked you right you asked me a question to try to say is every prophet first of all they're not prophets they're apostles do your prophets and apostles portray a consistent view who god is they're apostles they're an apostolic body so if if in the first century the apostles disagreed with one another how did they resolve that disagreed at what level if they disagreed on anything when peter was not acting in step with the gospel but peter was not acting in step with the gospel paul rebuked him and then peter repented best as we can tell right okay so peter repented as paul's so paul was authoritative over peter i'd like to speak to you in a personal way right now do you think religion's a game yes largely because you act like it's a kind of debate sparring no what i think it is this is what i think it is religion like this is boxing for you no no no religion is trying to look at well do you think that there's an objective morality yeah do you think the bible is objectively moral it declares that yeah i would define that certainly do you believe that the bible is clear to anybody who reads it on the basics again you you have to it is not equally clear on all things again right there's a whole bunch of questions it just doesn't answer it doesn't even address or touch yeah right but do you believe the bible says the 66 texts of the bible alone are god's word not explicitly it doesn't say that anywhere at all and if it doesn't say it explicitly how could somebody walk away and say that's what it says because of the very nature of the text no no no the nature of the text is that you have texts that were written across time largely by unknown authors to specific audiences why is that a problem by the way it's a problem why is a problem for the no that's a really great point protestants believe in certain books of the bible which are not given an explicit author a human author right right why is that why is that such a big problem in latter -day saint theology or for you at least well they're apostolic right not every book's written explicitly by an apostle right not everyone need be written explicitly by a known character why is hebrews authoritative because of its very nature okay right so right you made it you made it you made a subjective decision about what it contained the church and decided no not the church the church by the holy spirit which means the holy spirit directed a thing to occur and that is not a revelatory and authoritative act that is recorded that's why latter -day saints have a hard time with protestantism so the holy spirit said it when he spoke he spoke hebrews that's the very nature of scripture right i understand that you think that he's saying the formation of the canon or the recognition of the no what i'm saying is that objectively you guys you guys argue objectivity all the time it's a it's a mistake scripture is scripture day one scripture did not scripture does not become scripture later that's a theological position okay that's a theological position you have to understand that that is a that is a that is a position you hold that is not an objective fact okay you can't you can't live in a world of this is objective and this is subjective can god speak with clarity is religion is religion no no no can god speak words that are translatable transmissible and and teachable that are clear can he actually speak a word from the sky that everybody hears and understands the same way does god have the omnipotent power to inspire words which are sufficiently clear to his audience for accountability and teaching yes but not through an apostle or prophet or writings or scripture why not what kind of low god do you have what kind of weak god do you have i don't have a god that interferes with my own free will and agency okay okay because you guys don't believe in that you guys don't believe in libertarian free will most christians do most christians that believe in inerrancy believe in libertarian free will but you don't not in the same way no i would say that whatever you hold free will to be call it libertarian whatever you want whatever it is concurs with the will of god but even people who are not calvinistic who are classic arminians or wesleyans people who are molinists hold to usually hold to the dual author of god can make people do stuff that god can write that god can inspire infallible and inerrant words god can write and that's absurd okay so you know what because how does he do it this idea that god can't inspire infallible words how does he do it he super intends how does he do it he super intends the authoring process no no no he worked through human beings yeah who he spoke to in what way specifically you're asking me to peer into mystery yeah that's right that's what i'm saying you're already articulating mystery sure you are saying mystery and the way you're saying it is you're saying that i know that these texts were effectively authored by god and we have them as his will yeah and they are perfect so let me make an observation i think your view of who god is affects your view of what no it doesn't it doesn't my view of what scripture is affects my view of what scripture finishing the thought i think this is really important for the audience that i think they'll pick up here in the conversation you're going to misrepresent what i'm saying i hope not is it really important for the audience for you to misrepresent and mischaracterize i don't want to misrepresent you you are that's what you're doing i'm telling you right now that's what you're doing you should stop well what i'm saying is that the nature of god the nature of god connects to one's view of the inspiration of scripture who you view god to be influences how you think inspiration can be done i don't view god as a tyrant that's right so you're connecting those dots but you're connecting them differently right no i don't believe god is a tyrant that's right i believe that he speaks to humans who are willing to hear him because of what you believe god is and does can god speak to everybody and make them all believers i'm not mad at you i'm not trying to talk over you no but what you're doing is you're misrepresenting it seems like conceptually you think that because of who god is and what he would do you have certain implications in the very view of inspiration no no so i'm just saying i'm not doing that you have a coherence you are removing you are removing reality from your theology i'm not sure our microphones function for that kind of thing you're removing reality from your theology can you do what you want i'd have to qualify that big time can you do what you want i can't jump to the moon in any context can you do what you want i can't jump to the moon i can't turn myself into a different species i'm not sure what you mean i don't i did not mean to be controversial or to be no within the realm of reality obviously can you can you do what you want i can do things that in a real world that exists here in reality i think i can do things that are according to the nature god gave me and according to the circumstances he gave me according to the moral nature that i currently have so i need to be put in a position to have a certain nature to have a certain kind of heart to act on my heart act of the will to do certain things you can't do what you want there's certain things i want to you can do what god wants you to do yeah i can do what god wants me to do i don't even well i would want to say to the audience that i would not want to project your behavior on the rest of and i wouldn't want to project your behavior on the rest of the protestants either that's fine because most protestants the latter day saints we interact with on the street i would say vast majority are polite i've been polite the vast majority of latter day saints we talk to are respectful you don't think

I'm polite and respectful. No, I don't. I don't. Why am I not polite and respectful? I think you're pugnacious in a way that's rude.

I've been I've been pugnacious in my life in a way that's rude and I've had to repent of that But I'm just saying the way you've interacted with me is

I think pugnacious in a way That's not that doesn't represent the best of Latter -day Saint culture. So rather than focus on my attitude and my approach

It was worth it was worth a mention. Right. It's not worth mentioning. I think it is. What it sounds like is it sounds like I'm It sounds like you're losing an argument, which we're not having an argument.

I mean, that's what it sounds like. I would rather He's aggressive and abrasive and I don't like it. And hey audience

Travis is abrasive and abrasive and aggressive That's just I think you're your conduct on life net online has been abusive to other believers

You can you can think whatever you want I think your conduct and his conduct and his conduct is abusive and abrasive to members who are walking around Who you attack with deep theological problems that they have not considered and you don't articulate them or Contextualize them because you don't understand them yourselves like Andrew said,

I don't know what the LDS position is on it But I'm here to tell you what's wrong. I don't know what the LDS position on that I actually haven't recorded that you did.

I don't know. I'll attach it as a link to this video So so so he so the problem with it is is that you guys are out here to do what

Travis? I think with the question of whether God the Father ever was a sinful mortal or with the question of whether it matters

He was a sinful mortal. It doesn't take intellectual sophistication. It just takes humility. It does know it takes intellectual sophistication

Within the framework of LDS thought which you don't articulate to people you're trying to play gotcha

I think you're trying to it's like I think it's the least gotcha question. You could think of for example, it's it's the least

Sophisticated question. What's the what's the what's God ever a sinner? Was he ever perhaps? Members that you talk to who leave the church,

I don't know do they become evangelicals I don't know how they say people we talk to no No, just of people who leave as a consequence of whatever you bring on percent.

I don't know that the statistics. Yeah Yeah, most of them most of them most of those kind of die off most of them continuing a tradition of cynicism for the

Bible Because you guys articulate a worldview. That is far removed from reality

And you don't see it you can't see it you're so narrow in your perspectives It's why it's why

Wade here blocked me. So we were having a discussion about Sola scripture these these big Christian ideas and he recognized that the idea itself can't be articulated by anything other than feelings

No, I don't trust. I don't trust the way you recount my brothers, but I believe I believe

I believe the Bible is the Word of God because feelings and if you go far enough

Eventually, that's what they have to concede. For example, why do you believe the Bible's the Word of God? Well, I'm gonna I'm gonna bring it back to this the idea that God the

Father Never sinned and the idea that it's important that he never sinned. That's not something that requires my my

My young daughter doesn't require sophistication to come to a good conclusion about that She would if there's a if there is a robust theological framework for believing that I actually think that I did a lot of evangelism

In the streets of Manti and I talked to a lot of young teenagers Who had yet been on their mission and what

I what I observed is that these latter -day saint teenagers pre -mission teenagers were very eager to say there was only one that God had always been

God and that he never was a sinner and That it was absolutely absurd to think that he ever could and then you corrected them and then when they come back from their mission

And they mature after a few years there They are corrupted by their own culture by their own teachings to start saying well

Maybe Heavenly Father was perhaps a sinful mortal or he wasn't but it doesn't matter matter

What whether he was it goes in the reverse direction for for for a lot of even for latter -day saint children

They know intuitively with a monotheistic impulse that it's that it's really it's not humble. It's arrogant.

It's wrong It's absurd to believe to believe that Heavenly Father could have sinned or that it doesn't matter whether he's sinned

To have it to have a God that needed to receive forgiveness from another God There's plenty of latter -day saints who believe he could have been a sinners there's plenty of Protestants who believe all kinds of not

There's not a single latter -day There's not a single Protestant who believes Heavenly Father was once perhaps a mortal Protestant who believes in the atonement

Or it's efficacious nature to exalt human beings to become like God and reach a full potential

Do you think you could know when you when you die and you're saved and you're with God what happens? I?

Go to heaven and then what I'm resurrected why? Because I trusted in Jesus the purpose of life to honor

God and to know him and to love him and have a relationship So why did the incomprehensible triune God create human beings in a state of simple depravity?

They were not created in a state of sinful depravity. You were no From your birth. Can you slow down?

I Do you genuinely care about what Protestants believe Yes, okay, so a piece of advice

Go to the Westminster Confession or or go to another like a like a

Lennon Baptist Confession again Read a historic Christian Protestant, right? You're doing just get a get a good summary of you're doing

Exactly what you're saying that I'm doing and you're there's no Christian Confession that teaches that we're again

You're now saying it's not what the Christian believes It's what these things say, which is exactly what you are saying.

I can't do with my own theological framework There's the issue. I'm gonna rewind you're bouncing around.

I'm asking you specific We do not teach that Jesus that God created human sinful.

Yes, you do. Okay, you can you can think that When you were born were you born in a state of sinful depravity

Yes, but that does not mean I was created as a sin. You were created as a sinner No, I would not say what did you exist before you were born?

No. Okay, so you were created in sin I was I was created to represent Now you're saying

Adam is the representative head and as a result of Adam's sin Which he didn't sin by the way, if you'll read

Genesis If you'll actually read the text he couldn't have seen his cursed He was cursed

And that means he was expelled from the garden so and then that began that began a

Downward spiral the book of Genesis rebellion against God's Word What's in Opposing God's commands

By eating of the forbidden fruit and the new testing of the fruit the new knowledge of good and evil the New Testament Can a person sin without the knowledge of good?

I'm gonna complete that thought the New Testament says not to Imitate Eve. That's what Paul says in 2nd

Corinthians and in Romans chapter 5 that this is beautiful the one transgression of Adam is

Contrasted with the one act of righteousness of Jesus Christ in Romans 5 So in Paul's framework celebrating the

Work of Jesus on the cross and his one act of righteousness is all the more displayed as glorious when

Contrasted with the sin of Adam which Brooke which led to the depravity of humanity, but it calls transgression, right?

It's a sin so That's what

I'm saying you guys You we're not Travis we're not your enemy I know you're not But you're talking to me like where you're sparring opponents where your enemies no, no, no, that's how you're perceiving it

Because the problem is because you're you're you're what you're not understanding sparring with me as though I'm your enemy

No, no, what you're not understanding is is that for example, you don't read these texts very carefully

You just say Adam sin show me in Genesis what the sentence He took the forbidden fruit.

Okay, how is that a sin? He was commanded not the definition of sin to do it got to Disobey God's commands.

Okay, so disobedience is sin To contradict his character and to contradict of knowledge of any kind of act you are guilty of a sin

Irrespective of whether you understood the actual command associated with it or he would he was given

Yeah, okay. Adam was given Didn't have the knowledge of good and evil What does that mean to you?

He didn't have the knowledge of good evil. He knew enough to know he should not know That's your inference. That's your that's your imposing that on the biblical text.

So how the biblical text Articulate that the tree possessed the knowledge of good and evil

If a person can sin without any comprehension or understanding of good and evil

How does that make sense? I'm happy to talk about it. If you want to hear an answer sure I think that the idiom of the knowledge of good and evil

It's what the text says so in the rest of the Old Testament the idiom of the knowledge of good and evil