Doctrine of God

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

And good afternoon, welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday afternoon at our regular time I believe next week will be at our regular times as well. Don't see anything coming down the road cause any Difficulties along those lines.

8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 is the phone number. I have had this sitting on my screen for at least a week wanting to address it and since I didn't at the beginning of each program it didn't get addressed because our phone calls have been Gobbling up all of our time so allow me to address it right off the bat so that as phone calls come in or as we go to the Shabir Ali Mike like on a debate.

We don't miss this. Someone had written to me as I recall and that's why I brought this up. I I honestly don't remember the exact context but they Were asking about a very common Islamic apologetic argument and You you will hear it Presented to Christians, but not in not in the way that really Most most will not depend upon it because they recognize.

Especially if they are live in Western cultures and in fact have been raised in a Western culture that this particular Argument is not overly compelling to Western thinkers. But it is an argument of the Quran itself and hence those raised within Islam Find it to to have some level of validity.

Let me explain what it is in cura. Surah 17 88 we read say if the mankind and the Jinn's were together to produce the like of this Quran they could not produce the like thereof even if they helped one another and In surah 223 read and if you Arab pagans Jews and Christians are in doubt concerning that which we have sent down speaking of the Quran to our slave our Apostle Muhammad then produce a surah of the like thereof and call your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful, so the challenge is produce a surah like unto the Quran the the mankind and and the Jinn's the the evil spirits even if they were to cooperate together couldn't do this and.

So you have this this assertion and this Quran is not such as could ever be produced by other than Allah. But it is a confirmation of the revelation Which was before it that is the Torah the injeel the gospel and a full explanation of the book wherein there is no doubt from the Lord of mankind.

Surah 10 37 38 or do they say he Muhammad has forged it. Say bring then a surah like unto it and call upon whomsoever you can besides Allah if you are truthful and it goes on surah 11 13 is another example in surah 52 33 to 34 and so you have this assertion that is made in the Quran itself that no one could ever produce something like the Quran and this is taken as a Proof that the Quran is divine.

That no one could produce anything like it now. Obviously if you think about that for just a moment. You go. What do you mean? No one could produce anything like it? I Dare say that there are many people who feel that they have it's a completely subjective argument.

There's no Mechanism to Objectively demonstrate that this is the case. I mean the Muslims says oh well No one's ever done it and someone else will say well. You know look at this here and look at that there and you know I imagine there's plenty of Mormon who would feel the Book of Mormon is surpasses the Quran and it's in its clarity and what it means to them and so wouldn't that disprove the Quranic argument at least for the Mormon and All the Muslim can say is no it doesn't and the Mormon says yes.

It does and the Muslim says no it doesn't the Mormon says yes. It does and and I can't say Muslim Mormon clearly that many times in a row. But the point is no one that there's no way to win the argument.

There's one way outside of violence anyways. Yes, it does. Yeah. Rack back that ak -47 and that's the end of that argument sadly that is how Islam manages to do it when it's in the majority but When we're still in it's still in the minority, it's this ain't much of an apologetic argument and So you know I have I have heard this mentioned over and over and over again in especially when Muslims are talking to Muslims, and it's taken as as a given It and it's and it's accepted as a valid argument.

That well we all know that no one could ever produce even a single surah like unto the Quran now. You know I've read the Quran and reading it again and and studying it and all these things and and I go.

Man, there's I've read all sorts of things and Jonathan Edwards that are far beyond anything ever found the Quran Spurgeon had away with words that Muhammad never did I assure you of that and and oh, but I was just in English not in Arabic.

Well, you know what you know those who think Arabic is to be all and end all of all things. I you know beg to differ. Don't think that it's it's quite on the same level as as other languages to be perfectly honest with you, but Again how do you prove that because it's all a matter of taste.

It's just a matter of taste let me give an example here, and it'll give me an opportunity to likewise don't worry I'm while I am highly tempted, and it would be greatly appropriate for me to do this. Robert Burns is the the Bard of Scotland and His poetry is very very well known and it would be very appropriate to to read this with a Scottish brogue but You wouldn't be able to understand it because this is sort of an older language, but listen to one of his most famous poems Cotter's Saturday night.

This is about a an old Scottish family that gathers together and and Just just listen to this this segment, and I would from my perspective. There isn't nothing like this in the Quran. So I guess this just proves Islam, but here here.

It is it says the priest-like father reads the sacred page how Abram was the friend of God on high or Moses bade eternal warfare wage with Amalek's and gracious progeny or how the royal bard did groaning lie beneath the stroke of heaven's Avenging ire or Job's pathetic plaint and wailing cry or wrapped Isaiah's wild Seraphic fire or other holy seers that tune the sacred lyre.

Perhaps the Christian volume is the theme how guiltless blood for guilty man was shed. How he who bore in heaven the second name Had not on earth Ron to lay his head how his first followers and servants sped the precepts age.

They wrote to many a land how he who lone in Patmos banished saw in the Sun a mighty angel stand and heard great Babylon's doom pronounced by heaven's command. Then kneeling down to heaven's eternal King the saint the father and the husband praise hope springs exulting on triumphant wing.

That thus they shall all meet in future days there ever bask and uncreated rays no more to sigh or shed the bitter tear. Together hemming their creators praise in such society yet still more dear while circling time moves round in an eternal sphere.

Compared with this how poor Religions pride and all the pomp of method and of art when men display to congregations why devotions every grace except the heart. The power incensed the pageant will desert the pompous strain the sacerdotal stole.

But happily in some cottage far apart May hear well pleased the language of the soul and in his book of life the inmates poor Enroll, that's just a portion of it. And there's nothing like that in the Quran now a person who reads the Quran in Arabic might say oh, no.

No, no, no, but there but there is but it's all subjective it is all just a matter of what you find to be compelling and Obviously I would find that to be compelling because of its Christian elements and and of course it's Scottish element and things like that, but it's it's all a matter of subjectivity, so My point would be if the Quran itself which allegedly is the very The very Word of God the very the final Word of God consistent allegedly with what has come before.

If the Quran sees us as a compelling argument and it quite simply can be demonstrated not to be. That would reflect upon its authorship that its author is in fact a man named Muhammad not the eternal God.

It's not some eternal revelation that has just been mediated down to Muhammad without without human hands getting in the way and so It also strikes me that if this revelation and again, I've mentioned this many times. It's very clear that Muhammad thought his revelation was consistent with what had come before it and Since he did not have access to the Christian scriptures in his own language or even in the original languages that matter.

Then he would have no way of knowing that the argumentation utilized in the Christian scriptures is significantly different and of a completely different character as to Apologetic content Than that which Muhammad presents in the Quran.

Why would God utilize one form of argumentation and I would argue a significantly more usable consistent compelling form of argumentation in the Christian scriptures with which the Quran is allegedly consistent.

And then adopt a completely different perspective in the Quran Which is supposed to be the final be all and end all of all Revelations, it's supposed to be able to go to the whole world. Well, the reality is Islam can't and in fact We're seeing in the political struggles in our world today.

The fact that that Islam cannot Islam's message cannot do what the Christian scriptures can do that is the gospel can cross geographical and linguistic and cultural boundaries and Can speak to men women and children of every culture and of every language?

Without banishing everything in that culture and Forcing everyone to look the same to wash their hands the same to dress the same to speak the same to act the same Islam cannot do that Islam has to change the culture into an Islamic culture.

You have to establish Sharia law and This is this is not how the gospel works. The the kingdom of God is established within the heart. Not just externally within the society now that will impact how people behave.

God's law then becomes something that they rejoice in but you can see the very external nature of so much of what we see in Islam today and The fact that that this this constant push to establish Sharia law as if somehow merely having the law Somehow is honoring and glorifying to God you see since since Islam does not have a biblical anthropology Does not recognize the depravity of man the deadness of man and sin then we can understand why just the establishment of the law Becomes the goal, but we would recognize that if that's all you do Then all that's going to do is more and more demonstrate the sinfulness of man.

There has to be a quelling of the rebellion of man's heart. For there to be any true and final Establishment of the kingdom of God so just something I had had up on the screen I had wanted to address the arguments that the Quran itself makes in regards to the fact that it is a It is not Repeatable you cannot produce something that would that would be its equal which of course is a completely Subjective argument without the ability to establish on an objective foundation 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 is the phone number and we have one caller.

We'll take that call and then I get into the Shabir Ali a mic like Kona debate as we began listening to it briefly last edition of the dividing line, but Our LDS caller Pierre has wrote earlier today and wants to make some comments concerning the materials that I have been posting on the blog attempting to Explain to folks from the writings of the LDS Church leadership itself What the Mormon Church has historically taught on the subject of the nature of God's.

Mormonism, Creation, and the Meaning of Elohim

Let's go to Pierre. Hello Pierre.

How are you taking my call? Mm-hmm? I've been reading your articles with great interest. And I wanted to address a couple of issues if you depending on how much time you Feel you want a lot to the subject.

Mm-hmm, but I guess you could say scholarly Observations to make here some of which I think you might appreciate as a Someone who likes to be dealing with the grant and looks like being from elevate University Protestants judging from the Universities that mentioned that just to say that this is a make a balanced.

They make the following. Commences with a majestic portion of the universe by an exalted transcendent God is by divine fiat with unlike the prevalent option. This description does not infer creation out of nothing.

An Old Testament Outlook and outlook absent from the Old Testament mentioned for the first time only in the apocryphal book of 2nd Maccabees Wearing the six days divided into symmetrical pattern. And then it goes on and talked about the creation.

The view that the earth was not.

Well, of course which has almost next nothing to do with Joseph Smith because what Joseph Smith was arguing was that God is an exalted man From another planet who does not have the capacity or ability to do these things because matter itself is eternal.

And that he himself was once a man and now is an exalted man and that men can become gods themselves. Obviously, none of those writers were in any way shape or form addressing the idea that the God who created these things Was himself once a man and hence dependent upon the creation from which he himself then sprang which of course is what Joseph Smith was doing and which is what the King Follett funeral discourse is Communicating to everyone and why I have been quoting it because no one wants to seemingly deal with the fact that the God of Mormonism is completely and totally different on the most basic levels from the God that Christians have worshipped from the very beginning and That is the whole issue regarding Creation X and Hilo is not so much an argument over how to understand Bara and it's and it's Cognates though.

I would certainly argue I can't imagine how anyone can deal with the book of Isaiah and not come up with crush you X me Hello, but that's really not the point of why even mentioned it. The reason that the Mormon God Cannot create out of nothing is because he's not a god.

He is dependent upon the creation from which he springs that creation Pre-existed him and in point of fact without it. He could not become a god and so This is this is the issue with Mormonism is that Mormonism has no self-existent creator the the God of Elohim of Mormonism is an exalted man and there was a God before him that he worshipped and that God was a Once a man and he had a a God before him and as you know Joseph Smith himself talked about a grandfather God totally misinterpreting Revelation chapter 1 and missing the Greek there because he was ignorant of the biblical languages and his Prophethood somehow did not manage to teach him those languages though.

It allegedly taught him reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics. But he he claimed that that there was this this progression of gods now. You know modern Mormonism seems to be quite confused in my opinion as to what direction it's going.

There seems to be great confusion on the part of the leadership about which elements of these things are going to present and there's been Evolution since the days of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. I mean, it's pretty clear to me Wilford Woodruff taught that God is continuing to advance in knowledge power might and Dominion will do.

So worlds without end Bruce R. McConkie said he's not so, you know. You've got contradiction between apostles and prophets and things like that along along those lines and it it does seem to me that Joseph Smith thought that it was sort of like a train and You can't get any farther along the exaltation path than the cars in front of you.

Which are your ancestors and things like that and that's not really the big emphasis anymore either so who knows exactly where it's going, but the point is that until Mormons are willing to abandon Joseph Smith's teachings and Embrace a God that has eternally been God Mormonism will remain a religion unto itself.

Completely separate from Christianity, which believes that God has eternally been God as God himself says in Psalm 90 verse 2.

Okay, I can I like to come back to that if I may let me finish my point here. I like to quote from another it Friedman. I don't know. You might know him from a university. I'm learning channels on TV.

I can't remember which one. And he makes commentaries on as he translates it using his own knowledge of Hebrew to make his own translation and with regard to Genesis 1 2 as he makes the fall a tiny point of grammar makes a difference for theology.

Was shapeless and formless referring to the condition of the earth starting the instant after it had been that is it had already From the beginning of time and quote. Well, that's good reason why you never use translations done by a single individual.

You always use translations done by a committee because Individuals like that will come up with their own little pet theories and import them into their translations. Which is what just happened there, but the problem of course is Genesis 1 isn't the origin of crash.

You X and a helo. I wonder by the way Pierre have you found anyone who? Actually agrees with what Joseph Smith said in the King Follett funeral discourse and his comments on the Hebrew which are completely wrong and he would Be be failed in any beginning Hebrew class he ever took ever found anyone who would who would say that his commentary there was correct or his commentary about German in the King Follett discourse was correct or any of those things where he makes those those claims.

Based upon original languages, oh, I'm sure that they probably would not because you cannot separate obviously Joe Smith from a little and no one's going to agree to that. Because of what?

No grammatical grammatical grammatical points are grammatical points whether you're a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness or a Buddhist or an atheist and Joseph Smith made certain claims that were just simply wrong.

He doesn't he couldn't read the languages and So I would I would think that the the first thing you'd be doing would be Rehabilitating Joseph Smith's comments rather than going with these comments, but I guess you don't have any of those quotations.

But my point is that Genesis 1 isn't where you go for crash UX and helo anyways as the foundational passage. That's what you find all the way through Isaiah 40 through 48 and the trial of the false gods.

So what what do you do with with the assertions that That Yahweh makes when for example in Isaiah 44 24 he specifically Makes the assertion that he creates all things by himself. Specifically it says that says Yahweh your Redeemer and the one who formed you from the womb.

I Yahweh am the maker of all things stretching out the heavens by myself and spreading out the earth all alone. In Mormonism did Yahweh Aka Jehovah as we slaughter that in the English language via the Germanic languages.

Does Jehovah? create Stretch out the heavens alone and spread out the earth all alone.

Again, it has to do and and how you want to look at things. Because I think from an LDS standpoint We would have no problem really again the create. The idea of again a creation is simply organization bringing together the the raw elements and and creating something.

Organized out of something that is disorganized. I mean you can still you you can take the cosmic dust and create a whole.

Galaxy out of it. And and Yahweh did this alone, right?

Or was he directed by a separate God named Elohim in company with Michael. When Jehovah speak for God the Father.

That's why he is a singular pronouns.

Yes, he can do that that by that's known as divine investiture of authority. He can speak as one who he can speak as he is Jehovah. Is he not? I'm sorry I met Elohim. He can speak as if he were God the Father.

But he says I am Yahweh who made all things Who alone stretch out the heavens. Now did Yahweh make the planet that Elohim lived on when Elohim was a man?

Well, I don't know probably I'm sure the answer is no. So he didn't make all things then. Again, what does all things mean? What is his mean? Yeah, what what what you know did Jehovah have in mind when he made that comment when he said all things.

Well.

Yeah, don't you think. Do you think the context might determine that I? mean since Isaiah 41 through 48 is the demonstration of the falsehood of the false gods that the Israelites were worshiping and.

Since likewise in Jeremiah it is said that any God did not create the heavens and the earth will perish from underneath the heavens and the earth. Then the context is God is the creator of all things and it's the false gods who come forth from the creation just like the Mormon God comes forth from the creations depend upon the pre-existing material and.

Hence the the whole apologetic contrast is between the God who makes all things Barah Yatzer all the the cognate terms that are used And the false gods who themselves are dependent upon the creation. So wouldn't the context then tell us that all things actually does mean all things.

In the mind of Jehovah has to do with all things that whatever other solar systems.

And how do you know that I am Yahweh who made all things who alone? Stretched out the heavens who spread out the earth by myself it would be incumbent upon you To demonstrate that in language of Isaiah and in Jehovah's Revelation to his people That there is something beyond stretching out the heavens and spreading out the earth by himself, and I would submit to you That the whole idea of multiple universes and a limitation of the extent of God's creation is something.

It didn't come along at least in this context till late 1830s Approximately 25 2600 years after Isaiah.

Yeah, you go back to the to the beginning if I were a Hebrew man in the in hearing in the beginning the God.

Created the heavens and the earth. No you would not. No you would not. Yes, it is yeah, it is, but you just demonstrated. You don't read Hebrew. Do you I don't okay? Because the fact let me let me you know since you just put out a complete falsehood I'm gonna correct it now and anyone can go and check out who's right.

There are a number of forms in the Hebrew language where you have either dual forms or plural forms that are translated as singulars. And nobody who reads Hebrew nobody. Nobody more than a year and a half year old in he in in Israel today Would make the mistake you just made now you made it because Joseph Smith made it because he was not a true prophet and didn't Know what he's talking about and you're following him.

But no one who actually reads Hebrew would say what you just said because the fact that that word is used with verbs and One of the things drives me nuts is that in the English language for example today is just being destroyed.

We are just we are watching the utter degradation of the English language no one cares about grammar anymore and People are put out on the media who could not match a noun and a verb if their life Depended on it and when you hear people Who and I'm you know we all make mistakes.

But there are people who just consistently can't put a singular noun the singular verb or a plural noun the plural verb their life Depended on and it's amazing to me that people do not correct them or they're not embarrassed by it.

The Hebrew When it wants to refer to gods and there are times when Elohim is used Of gods the gods of the peoples are all idols psalm 96 5 tells us. So when you have gods they're idols. Anyone who worships more than one God is is an idolater.

The verb used the the language explains to us This is a plural because it's plural verb. But but when it's speaking of the one true God because many many times over 530 times It's Yahweh Elohim where the name Yahweh is attached to Elohim.

So it's Lord God in English translations, but Yahweh Elohim in the Hebrew the verb is singular not plural and so anyone who would translate it as a plural in the English language would likewise be matching singulars and plurals and we sort of chuckle at those folks and so You are wrong of course to say that the Hebrew person would hear Genesis 1 1 and go oh the gods did this because That's not what the verb tells you and they would recognize the name of their God Elohim Jehovah and they would recognize of course the fact that as the scriptures say He is a had he is one not that Elohim is the father of Jehovah.

But in fact the scriptures say Yahweh he is Elohim there is none else beside him singular not them Plural and so I'm sorry sir, but you are just simply incorrect in your Hebrew grammar at that point. That's that's the book of Abraham the book of Moses and You know and again I just want to make sure people understand the the overriding theological source for you is is The things like the book of Abraham which has been demonstrated to actually have have been Joseph Smith's made-up story Based upon Egyptian funerary documents where he didn't get a single word right ever on anything and It's amazing to me there there have been LDS people who stayed these things and who have you know left the LDS Church.

I'm not sure why you would look at those things and not do so, but that's that's the overriding filter. Pierre that you every single time you call we have to keep pointing out as we go to the scriptures and we see these things and people hear you.

Responding the way you're responding date they need to see the the role that overriding presuppositions have in What you hear and what you don't hear and when you go to? Genesis 126 and you translate the gods did this and the gods did that and and You you you don't respond to Elohim he is Jehovah.

Because for you Elohim is the father of Jehovah and that in fact there is a period in time when Elohim existed as a God and Jehovah did not exist as a God or in fact even as a human being correct. Correct, and there is and to say that is to demonstrate what I've said from the beginning.

And that is when Joseph Smith said we've imagined supposed to God was God from all eternity. I'll refute that idea and take away the veil so that you may see. By uttering those words in the general conference the Mormon Church the King fall at funeral discourse he forever Separate his followers from biblical Christianity because we have a completely different God.

The scriptures say that Yahweh is the eternal creator of all things you don't have a Yahweh that it's the eternal creator of all things. You just admitted, and I appreciate you're doing so that there was a time when Elohim was a God before Jehovah even existed as A man on on earth or Since you believe that's Jesus or even as a spirit child his exaltation would have had to have preceded the birth of Jehovah as a his firstborn spirit child, so There you go.

I mean sadly. This is not the level of discussion. That's taking place in our culture right now regarding Mormonism, and you notice I haven't said a word about Mitt Romney. But when people talk about Mormonism, they're not actually talking about what Mormonism teaches and in fact.

Do you know any Mormons who are. I mean honestly do you let me say that you know I've been in the church for 37 years and we actually don't really kind of issues that you bring up because they're real who God is.

Yeah. In the way you bring it up I mean in the kind of detail that you're interested in and and those kind of issues. But we know who God is and we understand the plurality of guys. I think all those who have been through the temple several times and who we do look carefully at some of the comments that are Made in general conference are the children of our father in heaven and as children we may become like him someday.

Well, wait wait a minute here. I'm confused. Are you saying that though it is the substance of the endowment ceremonies themselves though it is it is Definitional of what you are taught what you observe in the endowment ceremonies themselves that somehow Just it doesn't it doesn't connect with with regular Mormon life, it's not something that's that you that you ponder or that you compare with Scripture.

I I don't understand your statement here because it used to be many years ago. Anyways back in the when I first started witnessing to Mormons even the young people Understood what the King Follett discourse was.

Even the young people were more than willing to go to the mat. Because you know, well Joseph Smith himself said it is the first principle of the gospel. Now I had. I agree with you. There has been a diminishment of a focus upon this.

But I are you saying that you you feel this is it's always been this way.

Well, it has been from the time that I joined some 37 years ago I don't think we spend time and I had opportunity to attend Mormon doctrine classes where these things were brought up. They were not the focus of extensive discussion as you have described for instance in your in your blog articles.

They were they're not in the priesthood manuals.

They're touched upon in the priesthood manuals. Yeah, sure, but now again not in in great extent and you know, what we focus on is Like life, that's what we do it knowing knowing that as we do. We will eventually even as Jesus Christ is an exalted being so that is our exemplar.

So when when the. Were you married in the church? May I ask? Yes, my wife and I were sealed in the temple in Salt Lake City. Hmm. Could I ask how long ago that might be in 1974?

Okay, the convert to she's a convert from the Methodist Church. So that would have been a little bit before this but the the achieving a celestial marriage Manual published by the church the very first thing it says before it even discusses Anything else about marriage is it spends page after page after page driving home the point that God became a God by obedience to law specifically to the law of celestial marriage and That we can become gods and that we are of the same species as God everything that I focus on and bring to the Word of God and examine the light of the Word of God it presents as The the first foremost and primary thing before anything else in the discussion of celestial marriage and that was published Obviously under the seal of the first presidency of the church Jesus Christ.

I'm saying and what what year was that? Yeah, I was used it was It was used all the way up to 2003. Oh, really that late. Mm-hmm.

2001 is I think it was 2003 because I remember when you presented it on your program several years ago. I presume that's what you're talking about. The one you gave it. I I've discussed it. Yes. Yeah the way they presented it.

Mm-hmm. Because I've never heard that discussed anywhere. At least not to to that degree in manuals that I've read. So I was a little surprised to see it. But you know, I mean that that is what we ultimately come to a belief.

I don't think that you can escape that reading the scriptures going to the 10 something that comes to your mind With exceeding great clarity over time.

You think. You think that a person reading the Bible would come to conclusion that God became a God by obedience to celestial law.

No, and that's why Christianity fails to comprehend some of these things not only the tradition that's blinding them. But also the Bible it was once believed in. But you don't have any.

You can't actually name anybody who actually ever believed that on before. What about 18 40.

Approximately probably. So yeah, that would be correct. And and. Yeah, when I first joined the church, I thought if I could dig back far enough I might find something but I haven't found anything to that extent.

The closest I come to are some of these stated in Robinson's book Mm-hmm Where he quotes. Several of the men can learn to become God.

Yeah. Which as I demonstrated in my debate with Martin Tanner Is a completely different context and is a gross misuse of those patristic sources since they were all monotheists who likewise believe that God Created all things that have never been a man.

So those those words cannot possibly mean what Mormons have frequently abused them to mean and I don't mean you necessarily. But dr. Robinson and Martin Tanner and Van Hale and some others who do that, especially the folks at BYU.

That they do that. So if have you ever seen the the the DVD of of my debate with Martin Tanner? No, I think it might be interested to get that. Well, I'll tell you what we do have another caller and I'll tell you what I'll do Pierre.

I'll put you on hold. Let's talk to rich and he'll get your address and we'll send send that out to you.

Let me make one quick final comment on what you just said there. Okay, and that is that I agree with you that these individuals did not believe as we do. However, it does Represent a remnant of a once true belief time except they of course would tell you that this was based upon.

Their acceptance of the very thing that Joseph Smith said was a ref was He was refuting and that is that God is self-existently God and you can't find anyone before them believed anything differently.

Which would mean you'd have to hypothesize That those original apostles and their original followers who were taught by the Apostles who believed these things never wrote anything and just completely collapsed in the face of some sort of opposition that no one can really identify.

And honestly, I think that's a. Let me put this way Pierre. I'm I am significantly more fair with LDS history than Mormons are with my history.

Your history being reformed or you time I hit the history of the history of the Christian Church, okay.

I mean, you know when I try to deal with When I deal with section 114 the Doctrine and Covenants, I take it all out of your own stuff. I don't I don't create mythical groups that never existed and say well.

You know I think they did exist and I don't think there's necessarily evidence that they didn't exist and sort of. Insert them when that's what Mormonism has to do and say well, you know, this is a remnant.