Challenging Mormonism Live in Salt Lake City

You're up here to pass out literature at the LDS conference, is that right?

Yes, each conference we bring a group of people up, mainly from the Phoenix area.

Numbers depend on how many people we can put together in a short period of time, sometimes like it was this time.

But we normally have a group of people at each one of the gates and we'll be passing out literature and speaking with folks.

We're just willing to talk to anybody who wants to stop and talk about it. We do not do anything like obstruct the gates or do any yelling or screaming or anything like that.

We aren't into that kind of thing. If someone just wants to walk by and not take something, that's fine.

We're not going to do anything strange or unusual or anything like that. But we want to be available there to express to these folks where we're coming from and what we believe concerning the scriptures and about salvation and subjects such as that.

If you want to talk to LDS folks, you've got to go where they are unless they're going to come by your house, which for some strange reason they don't do anymore, at least where I live.

So you've got to come to where the LDS folks are. So here we are in Salt Lake City. One question that people are always asking, and I'm sure you've had this asked many times, is why is it that you would come and talk to, pass out literature and so forth, critical of the

LDS faith rather than say, oh, I don't know, the United Methodist Church or a

Pentecostal church or some other church that you would disagree with doctrinally? Well, there are a number of reasons.

First of all, we cannot be omnipresent, which means we can't be every place at the same time. And so we will, for example, be tracking the

District Convention of Jehovah's Witnesses in Phoenix in June, which is always really exciting, doing anything in June in Phoenix outside.

But we do work with them. We do have materials on other groups. We've done radio programs on other groups and gone to other groups' meetings.

It just so happens that twice a year you have the opportunity of talking to a large number of LDS people, and this happens to be where we are.

We do talk with other folks, and we do deal with other issues. I think it's one of the unique things about Alpha Omega Ministries that I'm the director of, is that we are not a group that deals with only one subject or one group of people.

I don't have anything against someone who does. I think, though, that I have seen quite often there's a danger in that, in developing some sort of tunnel vision.

The one group you're dealing with all of a sudden becomes the big baddie. I mean, everything you think of, you think about that one group.

Well, since we have to deal with, for example, in the six months since we've talked, my main area of study has been just basic Christian apologetics, dealing with atheists.

I've debated a number of nationally known atheists over the past couple of months, and we deal with that subject, we deal with Jehovah's Witnesses.

It helps to maintain some sort of balance in how you look at issues, to have a number of viewpoints in your mind, and be aware of how many different people feel and think, and how they present their particular viewpoints.

I think that helps you to keep from being unbalanced toward any one group. In fact, I've seen it happen where, for example, someone who deals only with Mormonism will start to interpret the

Scriptures only in a light that is negative to Mormonism, whereas if they tried to do that with one of Jehovah's Witnesses, who's coming from a rather different viewpoint, they'd find that they were just completely defenseless against that witness, because they're interpreting the

Scripture just against Mormonism. So, I think it's good that we do deal with a number of different issues.

We come up here because we care for these folks. I know that I've had a number of people call me an outright liar for saying that, but that's why we're here.

I am not financially remunerated for doing this or anything like that. I have my Volkswagen dying. I'm hoping it's going to get me home all right.

It's a long trip for one little old Volkswagen like that. But we're here because we care, and we do have a message to share.

Jim, what are the pamphlets you're passing out this year? Well, I think you've probably seen them all, Alma. We wanted to get one done on the priesthood, specifically for this conference, but we're going to have to hold off on that for the next conference.

But we're mainly going to, again, be looking at a track that went out very well last year, in October, and it's a little track called

Grace Plus Works is Dead Being Meaningless, which is a title that I was really worried about when

I wrote it. I really questioned whether that was a wise thing to do or not, but we found out that it was so unusual and so catchy as far as it is.

That sounds familiar. I've heard that somewhere before. But it actually went out much better than tracks that have a real obvious title.

We're also going to be talking somewhat about our track, What Atonement in the Mormon Church, a subject that I have discussed numerous times before.

And then hopefully in October we'll be coming up with a track called What's Your Authority, which we'll deal with briefly, obviously.

It's very difficult to present complicated topics like in a complete discussion of priesthood, authority, and a track.

But it's my experience that aside from strange LDS folks like Van and Alma, most

Mormons have not heard a whole lot of the opposing viewpoints concerning such subjects as priesthood, authority, or something like that.

And so we just want to try to get the thinking processes going on this and point out some specific issues. I would never bother to try to give somebody a track and say, here's the way

I'm going to answer all your questions. That's obviously impossible. And at the same time, I think I'm fair in saying that when people criticize particular short publications in the

Mormon Church, like, oh, what do Mormons think about Christ or something like that, criticize it for what it says, but not for what it doesn't say, because there's no way to be able to put all that information in it.

But we've actually got all our tracks up here, but we're mainly going to be looking at the Blood Atonement track, the

Grace Plus Worship is Dead track, and possibly our track on the Mormon Jesus. You know, while I have no difficulty whatever, and there are some who do, but I have no difficulty with somebody expressing a point of view saying, if I understand correctly, this is what you believe, this is what

I see is wrong with what you believe, and I have no objection to somebody doing that. The problem with all of that sort of thing, though, is where I take exception with you, and perhaps my primary exception that I would take with you in your ministry and your writings and so forth, is that I really do not feel that those who are criticizing the

LDS faith very often present arguments that are meritorious.

They're usually arguments that are very significantly flawed by attempting to portray

Mormonism as being something which it is not, or declaring that Mormons have doctrine which they do not have, and then proceeding to attack what is not even

LDS doctrine, and think that by attacking that and showing arguments against something like that, the blood atonement issue, for example, is,

I think, a very worthless kind of approach, and that's what

I have seen in a lot of what you're doing, is frequently, rather than discussing a particular issue, which

I think is legitimate, you're attempting to impose upon Mormons something which they don't believe, or something from LDS history which is twisted or distorted in some way, and then approaching it from that standpoint.

I think there's something wrong with that kind of approach. Well, let me respond to that, Van, if I could.

When you need to take a break or something, just make sure. Okay. I know I don't want to mess up your schedule.

We'll just turn the sound off on your gym. We're not going to break until 1 o 'clock.

Oh, okay. Well, I'll respond to that, first of all, Van, by saying that, for example, the issue you brought up sort of surprises me, in that blood atonement is,

I believe, a very valid issue in discussion. The differences between what

I see as biblical Christianity and the teachings of Mormonism. Our tract on the subject,

Alma and I have talked about somewhat, I do not think misrepresents

Mormon doctrine. Obviously, my tract is not designed to present an entire in -depth presentation of the

Mormon position. I'm assuming that the Mormon understands what it is. We in Phoenix have heard a lot about the bombings up here, and the

Mark Hoffman trial, and the material concerning the beliefs in blood atonement up here.

It's not something that's unusual. In fact, you need to realize that, of course, we've passed that tract out in Dallas, and Salt Lake, and Mesa, all over the place.

And most frequently, the discussion is not based on some Mormon's objection to our presentation of Mormon doctrine.

Normally, the Mormon very easily says, well, yes, of course, blood atonement.

I mean, Joseph Ewing Smith taught it, and Bruce R. McConkey taught it, and I understand it. Great. Normally, it's a discussion of the validity or non -validity of such a teaching.

And so I don't see that specifically blood atonement at all is an area where we've misrepresented

Mormon doctrine. And most of our tracts are heavily footnoted to works that are generally available to the public, because our tracts are going out to people who are non -Mormons as well.

And so they need to be able to check these references out for themselves. So, yeah, we'll emphasize

Mormon doctrine, or doctrines of salvation, or something like that, because they're most easily found and most readily available to a person who wants to go, well, is this really what they're saying?

But as far as misrepresentation goes, I think the items that we bring up,

I think, are important. Most of our tracts, for example, are on the person of Jesus Christ or his work.

And if I was asked to identify any one major area where the vast difference between Mormonism and Christianity as I see it exists, it would be in the person of Jesus Christ and his work.

And that is important, and it's important for what we're attempting to communicate. Let me be a little bit more specific on this.

I have a, I didn't bring it with me, but I have one of your pamphlets, and maybe it's not the one you're passing out,

I'm not sure, but it quotes extensively as factual history from a book published in the 19th century, which professes to be the

Confessions of John D. Lee. And in this particular quotation is the allegation that church leaders were here executing people right and left for transgression of church moral standards and things of that sort.

And I don't know of a single serious historian, even from the 19th century on to the present, who has placed any stock or taken seriously this purported

Confession of John D. Lee, which was published by his attorney after his death back east as a profit venture.

It's something which simply does not correspond with the extensive diaries of John D.

Lee and various things, and yet you're circulating something which was produced, which

I think is totally without historical foundation, and you're circulating it as being, you know, fact.

Well, let me just say that what you're referring to is a couple paragraphs from the

Confessions of John D. Lee relevant to Rasmus Anderson, Clingin Smith, Daniel McFarland, and James Higbee and others.

From that book, that section of the tract, for example, is in response to Bruce R.

McConkie's statement in Mormon Doctrine that it is completely ridiculous to believe that anything like this ever took place, that blood atonement was ever practiced by the church.

And I think the same scholars would have to admit that during the Mormon Reformation, that this kind of activity, this type of fervor amongst the people, especially when one reads

Brigham Young's and others' sermons that took place during that period of time, was a definite possibility.

It is not the main point of the tract at all. If you recall the tract, a red and white tract, you will notice that the majority of the quotations are taken from either sermons by Brigham Young, then quotations from Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R.

McConkie, and then closes in reference to Bruce R. McConkie's statement that this, of course, has never taken place.

The main issue of the tract, of course, is the whole point of blood atonement and the idea that man's sinful blood can atone for anything, like spitting on the sidewalk, let alone for certain grievous sins, that place a man beyond the power of the atoning blood of Christ to atone for.

And that is the main point of the argument. And, of course, when you start talking about, you know, you don't feel that that book is historical or contains errors, things like that, that's fine.

Obviously, there are people who would disagree with you. The point that is trying to be made, again, briefly, is that the climate definitely prevailed for that kind of thing to take place, and that kind of activity is not out of line with what

Brigham Young himself was saying. And his sermons on that subject, like putting javelins through a man who was with his wife in bed or something like that, the hypothetical case he was talking about, definitely gives rise to that kind of a fervor and that kind of an idea.

The point, again, though, was this is not Christian doctrine. The Bible nowhere says that man's blood can atone for anything, because if man's blood could atone for anything at all, then that would be the method of salvation that God would utilize.

But that's the whole point in the very coming of Jesus Christ. And I think this whole area of atonement is fascinating to me, coming from an,

I am an ordained Southern Baptist minister, coming from my viewpoint. And that is due to the fact that just recently, for example,

I'm sure you're familiar, Van, with Joseph Smith in Documentary History Church, Volume 4, page 211, which is quoted approvingly both by Joseph Philip Smith and by Bruce R.

McConkey, relevant to the reinstitution of animal sacrifice and the duties of the

Levitical priesthood. Coming from my viewpoint, both of these things, I think, show a very, very grievous error and misunderstanding of the biblical presentation of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Well, that's an interesting point of view, but let me just comment on a couple of things that you have said.

You know, because somebody preaches some strong doctrine, which was preached in 1857,

Brigham Young and other leaders spent several months preaching up and down the Wasatch Front, that people were committing, that Latter -day

Saints were committing sins in light of the fact that they had advanced a long way in the gospel, that they had committed sins of such a grievous nature that were the law of God, as it was established anciently, in effect, that these people would be worthy of death, and they should actually suffer death.

However, the fact is that Brigham Young never claimed to have executed anybody or to have approved such a thing.

In fact, just a reference, you might want to jot down Journal of Discourses, Volume 11, page 281.

In this, Brigham Young makes this statement. He says, "...there are some things that Brigham," and this is

Brigham speaking about himself, "...there are some things that Brigham has said he would do, but has never happened to do them.

And this is not all. He prays fervently to his Father and God that he may never be brought into circumstances to be obliged to shed human blood.

But he never has yet been brought into such a position." I mean, there's just one reference by Brigham Young, the fact that he is preaching strong doctrine, which indeed he did during that particular year.

Throughout LDS history, LDS leaders who were contemporaries of Brigham Young have consistently denied that the

Church ever took any position of enacting these laws that were in force in ancient

Israel. And the Javelin sermon that you make reference to of Brigham Young's, of course, is a sermon that was based directly upon an

Old Testament passage. And not only that, may I interject that that sermon there concludes,

Brigham Young concluded that sermon by saying that that law was not in effect because the laws of the land forbade that.

Well, that's the point. I'm glad you brought it up because it was exactly what I was going to say. The whole point of objecting to this is to point out the fact that if the

Mormon Church had the opportunity, if the Mormon Church had control of the laws of the land, it would seem to me that these laws, which are taught as divine laws by the

Mormon hierarchy, not just Brigham Young. I mean, I made reference to Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrine of Salvation, Volume 1, pages 134, 135.

I have it right here. Some of your listeners, anyway, might be familiar with that. If the

Mormon Church were in control, these laws would be reinstituted. And I would assume, probably on the basis of D &C 132, the same thing would happen with polygamy.

If the Mormon Church was allowed to exercise the laws that it sees fitting as being scriptural without any interference from the state.

And the whole point, again, is not, did Brigham Young go out and put a javelin through somebody?

But the very idea that Brigham Young could say that by doing so, those people would atone for their sins and be exalted and received into the celestial kingdom of God.

That's the main point of what we're trying to say. Saying that that is not Christian doctrine, and that's not biblical doctrine.

That there's not one shred of evidence for it. Not only that, but it's completely contradicted by what the

Bible teaches concerning the all -sufficient sacrifice of Jesus Christ. And the Bible's teaching concerning the blood of man and the lack of any atoning efficacy thereof.

And so the point is not, well, Brigham Young was a nicer guy than that, and he said he was glad he didn't have to kill anybody.

Well, fine. But Brigham Young did believe that if something like that occurred, and they had their blood shed, that that shed blood could atone for their sins.

That's the whole point. Jim, I think we've passed on from the point that Van was making to a new point.

Van's original complaint was that, you quote from Confessions of John D. Lee, that here we have, here's an execution taking place by the church,

Robin Sanderson executed by the LDS church. And we can say that that is spurious.

That's false. That never happened. Well, my point in saying that was relevant to what Bruce R. McConkie said on page 92 of Mormon Doctrine.

He says, There is not one historical instance of so -called blood atonement and dispensation, nor has there been one event or occurrence, whatever, of any nature, from which the slightest inference arises that any such practice either existed or was taught.

Of course I'd expect the church to deny that any such thing ever occurred. And you may think that particular incident is spurious, but I think, especially in light of what even continues to go on today, amongst those people who continue to hold to Brigham Young's teachings concerning blood atonement,

Adam -God, plural marriages, that it's very, very easy to see that this kind of doctrine brought about this kind of activity.

And for Bruce R. McConkie to say that there is not one instance, not even one thing from which the very slightest inference could arise that this ever took place,

I think is naive at best, and is misleading at worst. And that was the point in including the incident.

But again, that is only the last section of the tract, and it's only in response to what McConkie said. And the main point of the tract is, no, blood atonement is not biblical.

The idea that you can atone for your sins is not biblical. And that's the whole point of it. Well, that might be the whole point of it in your mind, but I think it is a significant thing that people...

One of my complaints is that people like yourself and others circulate material as being accurate history, which no serious historians accept as being accurate history.

Well, wait a minute. I mean, you all circulate the Book of Mormon as accurate history, and I don't know of any non -Mormon historians who think it's accurate history either.

But I'm not coming on here and complaining about that and saying that this is a problem that I have with Van Hale.

I could talk about the first vision incident and things like this and say, well,

I don't think this is accurate history, and obviously I don't. But the same thing,

I think, must apply in this situation as well. Jim, so you would say that you would accept the account of Rosmos Anderson as a principle of faith, that you have faith that that occurred?

No, faith, of course, is something that I don't even think the word would apply in this situation.

But it applies in the Book of Mormon. Excuse me? But it applies in the Book of Mormon. We have faith that the Book of Mormon is an accurate document.

Right, I understand that. But I don't have any faith in John D.

Lee. What I'm saying is that there were recorded books published that give the slightest inference that such activity took place, and there are many other books.

And, of course, again, the church would say, well, these are spurious. Well, that's wonderful. But, of course, the burden of proof lies on both sides to be able to prove their case.

And, again, it was in response to Bruce Albuquerque saying there's the slightest inference, no instances of this occurred.

And when you look back at history and go, you know, it's really strange. You've got the Mount Meadows Massacre occurring.

I mean, it's rather strange all this is happening back then. And I'm sure that if the historical records were accurate enough, we could find all sorts of instances where people have mysteriously disappeared because, for the very simple reason that in the state you all live in here in Utah, the state

I live in, Arizona, in northern Arizona and southern Utah, people do tend to disappear, mainly at the hands of people who follow the very teachings that Brigham Young was preaching during this period of time in Utah.

Well, I would certainly disagree with that. I don't find Brigham Young ever authorizing anyone to take anybody's life.

Let me just read a statement to you. This is from an official declaration of December 12, 1889, published by the

First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve of the Church. And, of course, at this time,

Wilford Woodruff was president, who was an apostle throughout the entire lifetime of Brigham Young, or his entire administration.

George Buchanan, Joseph S. Smith were all contemporaries of Brigham Young and lived throughout this time period.

Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Brigham Young, Jr., and so on. These are all men who are addressing themselves to this particular issue, and you don't like McConkie's suggestion that there are no instances of this.

But let me read this official declaration to you. And I think this, at least as far as I'm concerned, carries far more weight than the unsupportable allegation in this spurious

Confessions of John D. Lee, that, as I indicate, no serious historian has taken seriously.

They state this. In consequence of gross misrepresentations of doctrines, aims, and practices of the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints, commonly called the Mormon Church, which have recently been revived for political purposes,

I'm going to skip a little bit, we solemnly make the following declarations, namely, that this Church views the shedding of human blood with the utmost abhorrence, that we regard the killing of a human being except in conformity with the civil law as a capital crime which should be punished by shedding the blood of the criminal after a public trial before a legally constituted court of the land.

Notwithstanding all the stories told about the killing of apostates, no case of this kind has ever occurred, and of course there has never been established against the

Church we represent. Hundreds of seceders from the Church have continuously resided and now reside in this territory, many of whom have amassed considerable wealth, though bitterly hostile to the

Mormon faith and people, even those who have made it their business to fabricate the vilest falsehoods and to render them plausible by calling isolated passages from old sermons without the explanatory context, have suffered no opportunity to escape them, vilifying and blackening the characters of the people have remained among those whom they have thus persistently calumniated until the present day without receiving the slightest personal injury.

And they go on just to state that they denounce these whole things as being fabrications.

These are individuals who knew Brigham Young's teaching, who were supportive of his point of view, and they are expressing their point of view that the idea of instituting this idea of executing apostates and things of that sort are fabrications, and I think a point which very substantially supports that idea is that from the very beginning of the settlement of the

Salt Lake Valley, there were those who were very, very hostile to Brigham Young and Church leaders, and who published their views and spoke them freely here in the

Valley, and lived among the Latter -day Saints for years and years, and did not end up dead. Well, two things in response to that.

First of all, the Church also very strongly and very openly claimed that after the manifesto and the cessation of polygamy, that there is no one being married and living in polygamous marriages, and yet we know that even the

Church leadership was involved in the Mexico deal and the whole nine yards at that point. So the point again is, yeah, sure, that's going to be said, but when one reads, for example, and I know that the quote says something about digging up old sermons, so I guess

I'm one of those nasty people who digs up old sermons, but I believe this was Brigham Young. I was negligent in marking the exact reference, other than the

Journal of Discourse, Volume 4, page 220. Brigham Young, as I recall, says, I can refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain in order to atone for their sins.

I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance in the last resurrection.

There will be. If their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground, that is smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the devil until our elder brother

Jesus Christ raises them up, conquers death, hell, and the grave. I have known a great many men who have left this

Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them.

The wickedness and ignorance of the nations forbid this principle of being in full force, but the time will come when the law of God will be in full force.

Now, I would take that. That's the end of the quote there. But I would take that to mean that in the future, when the laws of God, as viewed by Mormonism, are put in place, that blood atonement, including the shedding of blood, human blood for the atonement of sin, will be in full force, as Brigham Young said.

He went on to say, This is loving our neighbor as ourselves. If he needs help, help him. If he wants salvation, and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it.

Any of you who understand the principles of eternity, if you have sinned, a sin requiring the shedding of blood except the sin of death, would not be satisfied, nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire.

That is the way to love mankind. So again, the point that I've been trying to make, and repeatedly make, is this.

He taught it. He taught that it is a law of God, that it is a godly principle.

He said right there that he could refer you to plenty of instances where this had occurred. Now obviously,

I would assume that you would say that he's referring to the Old Testament, but I don't think the Old Testament law of capital punishment has anything to do with blood atonement.

It's as far away as you can get. The whole idea that man's blood can atone for his sin is completely unbiblical, and that's the point we're trying to bring out.

That this shows, again, the massive deficiency in the doctrine of the atonement of Christ as represented by Mormon doctrine, not only relevant to blood atonement, but also relevant to the idea that in the future, animal sacrifices are going to be reinstituted and going to play a part in the role of the priesthood in the future.

These two elements together, I think, very clearly differentiate between the

Christian doctrine of the atonement and that which is propounded by the Mormon Church. And these are the points we're trying to bring up.

That's not biblical. That is unbiblical. The blood of Jesus Christ alone can shed. They shed blood of Jesus Christ alone can atone for sin.

Your blood cannot atone for anything. And to attempt to tie this into anything like capital punishment or something like that has nothing to do with the idea of atonement, either in the

Old or the New Testament. Okay, and I would, of course, disagree with you. I think you're the one who's on the wrong side of the biblical argument or the biblical teaching on this subject.

As we turn to the Old Testament, for example, the idea is clearly taught in the

Old Testament that sin is taken away by the shedding of blood.

I'm looking at Leviticus 17 .11. I assume that you would not take exception with that.

Well, certainly not. Obviously, you have animal sacrifice in the Old Testament. But you also have to realize that I, for one, take the

Bible as a whole, as a unity, as an inspired body of books.

And when you do that, then you must realize that the

Old Testament sacrifices and the Old Testament system was a shadow of things to come.

It was a picture of the atonement of Christ. But the Bible clearly teaches that even those who preceded

Christ were forgiven not on the basis of animal blood sacrifices, for that sacrifice cannot take away sin, as the book of Hebrews says, but on the fact that God applied to them the merits of Christ.

In Romans 3, Paul clearly teaches that in the death of Christ, God dealt with all of mankind eternally, both before and after Christ, and that these things were pictures that pointed to the one ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

And so the idea that there is in the Old Testament, for example, even within the Old Testament itself, the concept that man's blood can atone for his sin,

I think is completely absent. There is no atonement, the yom kippur, the kaphar that was made over the people, the covering of the sin, was a picture of Jesus Christ, and it was never presented that that man's blood was actually the agent by which forgiveness was coming in any way.

And all of that, even if one was to say, and I think it would be a great error to do so, but even if one was to say the

Old Testament is filled with this, that Old Testament system was fulfilled and completed in Jesus Christ.

And hence once we are living beyond the cross, chronologically speaking, one must look to the

New Testament and say, does the New Testament present the idea that man's blood can atone for sin?

And you and I have spoken about this before, Van, and I don't think that it was resolved in the positive for the position that you're presenting.

Well, of course I disagree with you, and I disagree for these several reasons.

First of all, in the Old Testament the idea is clearly presented that the shedding of blood is for the purpose of the taking away of sin.

And I was making reference to Leviticus 17, verse 11, which maybe

I ought to read that. Maybe I don't need to. I think everybody recognizes that that concept is in the

Old Testament. And then secondly, the situation we find in the Old Testament is that there are certain sins that a person can commit that the shedding of animal blood is sufficient.

However, there are sins that I think everybody is well aware of outlined in the Old Testament, and I can refer to these if need be, that there are sins that put a person beyond the sacrifice of the blood of animals and the person's own blood is to be shed in respect to certain serious sins.

Such as? Well, for example, quite a number of them are listed, but you have the sin, of course, of murder and adultery.

Let's make sure that we understand what you're saying. You're saying the Old Testament teaches that a murderer, by being killed, by being stoned normally, which would hardly be a massive shedding of blood sacrificially, which is the context in which

Mormon blood atonement is being placed, by being stoned was atoning for his sin, or was he simply being killed and taken out of the way?

I don't recall the exact verse. It would take me a few minutes to find it. But I believe that it's in Leviticus, but it says that the land is polluted by the murderers in the land and that the land can be cleansed by the shedding of the blood of the murderers.

Now, again, I've got to take you back to what you're saying and comparing what you're saying with what the

Mormon position is. Does the Old Testament present the idea that the shedding of that man's blood is the atonement for his sins?

I'm not talking about the idea that God very clearly said that the evil people in the land and the land was polluted.

My answer to that would be that I don't believe that...

See, what you're saying is that that atonement replaced Christ. And in the Mormon doctrine, the principle of blood atonement does not in any way overtake the blood of Christ.

It's the blood of Christ that brings men back, that atones for all sin, brings them back into the presence of God.

And I think we get on to a mistaken concept when you try to assume that the

LDS teaching was apart from Jesus Christ. Well, I'm not saying that it was apart from Jesus Christ.

As one of your own prophets expressed it, He says, I don't know how to interpret beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ other than beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ.

If then he would be saved, he must make sacrifice for his own life. Then he says on page 135, basically the same thing, where he says, they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ.

Now, since we're talking about power and being beyond the power, I would agree with you that I'm not trying to say that the

Mormonism says that Jesus Christ did not atone for sins. What I am pointing out, and I think it's very clear from Mormon writings itself, is that his blood atoned for certain sins.

But there are certain grievous sins that you can commit that his blood will not atone for. In fact, the very inference of the phrase, as Joseph F.

Smith put it, was that his blood is not powerful enough to atone for those. And even Brigham Young, in Joseph's course,

I think it's 454, said, And so, if you're saying it's a mistaken concept,

I'm not saying that there is no doctrine of atonement in Mormonism. I'm saying it's just completely wrong. I'm not trying to say that you get rid of Jesus Christ totally and completely.

His atonement does settle the account on certain sins. But the whole point is, if you say that there are certain sins that his blood cannot atone for, and that indeed a person's blood can atone for those sins, you are saying, in effect, that that man's sinful blood is more powerful and has a wider application than the very blood of Jesus Christ.

Well, you see, that's, I guess, the interpretation that you would like to place upon that.

But, of course, you have no church leader who is suggesting that.

The idea, I mean, that's your clever twisting of the idea. Well, what did Joseph Joseph Smith say? Well, let me just throw in a couple of ideas here.

I think the point that's being made, and whether you agree with Brigham Young's point of view on the

Scriptures or not, I mean, it's one thing for you to have one opinion that disagrees with Brigham Young or Joseph Fielding Smith.

That's fine. But the fact is that there is Biblical support and Biblical passages that are being referred to by Brigham Young and, of course, by Joseph Fielding Smith, in which they are pointing out that there are certain sins that puts a...

and there's Biblical passages that seem to support this, that put a man beyond the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

Not the atoning sacrifice of Christ. That's not what Alma said. Alma said the sacrifice of animals.

There's nothing Biblically that says beyond the sacrifice of Christ. For the law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming, not the realities themselves.

For this reason, it can never, by the same sacrifices, repeat endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.

I may have lost you there, Jim. You said, I said that the sacrifice of animals?

That's how I understood it, yeah. Okay, you must have misunderstood me. Well, the whole context of Leviticus, obviously, when

Van says the sacrifice of Christ, we have now taken it completely out of the context of Leviticus and have taken it into a

New Testament situation. And that's why I began reading to you there, Hebrews chapter 10, where the writer continues to say, if it could, would they not have stopped being offered for the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins.

But those sacrifices are an animal reminder of sins because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

And the whole idea of the atonement is not simply blood being shed.

It is a perfect life that is not condemned under the curse of God being given. And if a human being who is condemned under the curse of God gives his life, that is not an atonement.

It is not a covering. It has no saving efficacy in it whatsoever. That's the whole point of the book of Hebrews. I think verse 26 says,

For there is no longer any sacrifice that will take away sins if we purposely go on sinning after the truth has been made known to us.

So here is an example in Hebrews of a situation under which the author of Hebrews is indicating that it is possible for a person to commit sin that puts him beyond the sacrifice for sin provided for by Christ.

Okay, that's what I disagree with. And then I would say from that point that those who reject or trod under their feet the sacrifice of God have to bring forth some fruit meet for repentance.

And I would really question the idea, if you were to have asked

Brigham Young, does this man giving his life really pay for his sin?

Does that mean he no longer needs a Savior for that sin? I think

Brigham Young would have said, no, that's absurd. But the fact that the man has shed his blood for certain grievous sins is an indication of bringing fruit meet for repentance.

Well, again, I would say that first of all, relevant to the context of what the early church leaders were saying, we've read the quote so many times now, you have to leave it to the listeners to see whether they were talking about atonement, atonement for sins, atonement for sins by their own blood.

I mean, we've mentioned a number of the references. And you've given the Joseph Fielding Smith quote, and he keeps saying, for that man to atone as far as is possible, indicating that he really can't atone for his sins.

That all he can do is bring forth a certain point and show his repentance and his reliance on Christ.

And yet he then goes on to say that his blood must be shed to atone, to show that he's repentant? No, to atone for his sins.

And relevant to the other thing that was brought up in Hebrews 10, verse 26, I think you missed the point of what he's saying there, the author of Hebrews is saying there.

You need to realize this was written to Hebrews. And as I understand what he's saying there, he's not talking about the sacrifice of Christ because he's just finished an entire chapter on the complete and total sufficiency of the sacrifice of Christ.

What he's saying is that if you know that Christ has made sacrifice for sins and attempt to go back to your old ways, attempt to go back to the legal system of Leviticus, which keeps coming up here, or Deuteronomy, or wherever we may be pulling it from, those sacrifices are no longer sacrifices for sins.

You cannot say, well, hey, I offered the right sacrifices. No way. There is no sacrifice left for sin other than the one sacrifice that made by Jesus Christ.

And that again brings me back to what I think was not covered just a second ago. And that is the whole idea of what is the atonement?

Why is it that the death of Jesus Christ cleanses from any sins at all?

And I think if we understand Jesus' sinlessness, the fact that he was the perfect sacrifice, the

Old Testament teaching that the sacrifice must be completely non -blemished, it must be perfect, when we understand what that's pointing to, then we realize the complete absurdity of saying that there can be any type of atonement by a blemished person, by a sinful individual.

And you can say that Joseph F. Smith or Brigham Young were not saying that shedding of blood provides an atonement for that man's shedding of blood, but they said it directly out in English words.

We can say, well, they didn't really mean that. Okay, then we're at a loggerhead and that's it. We can just go on to something else. But if one reads what they said, they directly said that that is an atonement for sin.

And the people I've talked to, you know, the people who have left messages on our phone machines in Las Vegas and in Phoenix take it very deeply, seriously.

At least they understand it that way. And I've talked to many an LDS person outside the temple that has understood it in the exact same way.

If you take a different viewpoint, and Alma, I know that you do take a different viewpoint on certain things, fine. Okay, great.

But the point is, you know, I could, if I tried to write a tract that would reach the majority of Mormon people and Van and Alma at the same time, it would be next to impossible because you're going to take some exceptions to various things.

Well, you know, there are a lot of Latter -day Saints who would see you quote a statement from Brigham Young and assume that you have interpreted him correctly and would attempt perhaps to try and defend that kind of a position.

But, you know, what I'm saying, let me just kind of summarize what

I'm suggesting in this whole point, and then maybe we can go on to something else if you want to. But what

I'm saying is, first of all, the concept that Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, and others were presenting was not, it was not, that the shedding of a sinful, blemished man's blood is more efficacious, more powerful, and more significant than the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

And the fact that they have used the word atonement there is unfortunate because it has led you to,

I suppose, a sincere misunderstanding of what they're saying.

But they're not saying what you keep claiming that they're saying. They're not saying the blood of sinful man is more potent and more powerful than the blood of Jesus Christ.

They're simply saying that a person can commit sin, certain sins, which put that person beyond the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

And, of course, as I have, you know, I did cite this passage from Hebrews 10 .26, which seems very clearly to be suggesting that.

You also have the idea of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, both of which are mentioned by Joseph Smith and by Brigham Young and by other leaders as tying into this.

They're saying that beyond, that a person can commit a sin that puts them beyond simply repenting and being forgiven based upon the atoning sacrifice of the blood of Christ.

And I think that is something for which there is biblical support, regardless of your point of view on it.

Well, let me summarize what I was saying, too. Okay. And that is that, first of all, in reference to the impardonable sin, that the passage of Matthew makes it very clear there is no forgiveness for that whatsoever.

Atonement or no atonement. We've talked about the impardonable sin before, Van. I would just simply wrap up by what

Brigham Young himself said, where he said there are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar in ancient days.

There are sins the blood of a lamb or of a calf or of turtledoves cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man himself.

And the point that, I'm not exactly sure how we got to it, we just started off with one of the tracts, but the point that the tract makes and the point that we're making relative to blood atonement is that the atonement of Jesus Christ is all -sufficient.

It is not limited in its scope or power at all. That it cannot be,

I'm searching for a certain word, added to, helped out by any other sacrifice of man or anything else.

And to add anything, even if you make it completely secondary, to add anything to the completed work of Christ on the cross is to undo the completedness of his work.

And this is exactly how I see, for example, the entire doctrine of priesthood within Mormonism and this doctrine of blood atonement and eventually the re -institution of animal sacrifices in the future.

Which has not, I keep bringing that up, but I don't get any response on it. I'm not sure if you... Well, it's going off in a different direction.

You know, that's... I have certain things in mind that I would like to...

I understand. I would like to address myself to and have you address yourself to. Sure, no problem. And I think that, you know, you've made your point.

And my point is just simply that I think you misunderstand, I hope not purposely, but I think you misunderstand what

Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith are trying to say. And I object to your twisting that and suggesting that they were advocating that a sinful person's blood is more efficacious than the blood of Christ.

Well, Ben, I hope you don't mind when I say I feel you're twisting it as well, if that's what you're saying. You have not cited anything from any of them suggesting that.

I mean, that's your imposition of your point of view. You're saying this is what they must have believed, given your particular point of reference.

But they're coming from a different point of reference in which they see that it's possible, and they're drawing their material on this from biblical passages, that it is possible for a person to commit sin for which a turtle dove can cover that sin.

And it's also possible for a person to commit a sin for which nothing will cover that except for the shedding of the blood of that individual himself.

Now, one final item I would just kind of like to throw into this, and I think it would be extremely worth your while to get a copy of this and maybe alter your writing to conform with this particular item.

And this is a letter by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, written October 18, 1978, to Mr.

Thomas B. McAfee of the Utah Law Review, the University of Utah, and President Kimball had received a letter from Thomas McAfee of the

Utah Law Review, requesting some information for inclusion in their

Utah Law Review regarding blood atonement and capital punishment. And President Kimball commissioned

Bruce R. McConkie to write a letter on this, which runs for about four pages, and I'll just read a little excerpt from it to give you a feeling of what he has to say on the subject, because I'm not convinced that you're attempting to say, well,

I've talked to Mormons who believe this and that and the other, therefore I understood what they said, and I am therefore authorized, based upon that, to express what

Mormon doctrine is, and that Van Hale and Alma Allred don't represent

Mormon doctrine. But I would say that this particular letter, written by Bruce R.

McConkie under the direction of President Kimball, to state to the Utah Law Review the

Church's position on blood atonement, I think conforms with what Alma and I are suggesting to you, and it goes against what you are saying

Mormons believe. At any rate, you might want to pick this up. I don't have a reference on it immediately where it's published, but it has been published in Dialogue Magazine, and I imagine probably also in the

Utah Law Review. Anyway, McConkie makes this statement. He says, In reply to your letter of September 20, 1978, to President Spencer W.

Kimball of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints, in which you asked some questions about the so -called doctrine of blood atonement,

I have been asked by President Kimball and by the First Presidency to respond to your inquiries. You note that I and President Joseph Fielding Smith and some of our early

Church leaders have said and written about this doctrine, and you asked if the doctrine of blood atonement is an official doctrine of the

Church today. If by blood atonement is meant the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the answer is yes.

If by blood atonement is meant the shedding of the blood of men to atone in some way for their own sins, the answer is no.

We believe that the blood of Christ shed in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the Cross of Calvary cleanses all men from sin on condition of repentance.

As expressed by a Book of Mormon scripture, salvation was and is and is to come in and through the atoning blood of Christ, Lord Omnipotent.

We do not, and that's his emphasis, we do not believe that it is necessary for men in this day to shed their own blood to receive a remission of sins.

This is said with a full awareness of what I and others have written and said on this subject in times past.

In order to understand what Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Charles W. Penrose and others have said, we must mention that there are some sins for which the blood of Christ alone does not cleanse a person.

These include blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, as defined by the Church, and that murder, which is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice.

However, and this cannot be stressed too strongly, this law has not been given to the

Church at any time in this dispensation. It has no application, whatever, to anyone now living, whether he is a member or non -member of the

Church. He goes on, you know, the whole letter is very interesting and would be worthwhile for you if you are interested in addressing yourself accurately on the subject.

It would be worthwhile for you. Again, I know you need to take a break here in a second, but again, if you're saying

I'm being inaccurate, I just again repeat what I'd always said, and it's interesting that he says it's almost in direct contradiction to McConkie, where Joseph Ewing Smith said, if these offenses are committed in the blood of Christ, we'll not cleanse them from their sins, even though they repent.

Therefore, their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, on their behalf. This is scriptural doctrine and is taught in all the standard works of the

Church. And again, one must simply look at the materials themselves and look at history and practice and say, you know, what is being said?

And again, McConkie himself did say, and it's the same point I made just a couple minutes ago, that the blood of Christ alone, in other words, something needs to be added to what

Christ did for the forgiveness of these certain grievous sins. And that's the whole point of what I've been saying all along.

That is not biblical. According to you, Jim. Excuse me, I couldn't hear you.

I said according to you, that's not biblical. Well, I think according to you, that's not biblical. According to me, I would say that, and I would take my cue from the

Book of Mormon, on this one principle. For example, in Mosiah 15, when

Abinadi was speaking to the priests of King Noah, and he says,

But behold, and fear and tremble before God, for ye ought to tremble, for the Lord redeemeth none such that rebel against him and die in their sins.

If you rebel against God, you will die in your sins. You have to repent of your sins and acknowledge

God and look to him for redemption. And that is adding something to his sacrifice.

You have to do something. You have to acknowledge him. Well, fortunately, I know you brought that up in the

Book of Mormon, but fortunately in the Scriptures, we are told that the Christian has been crucified with Christ and that the life that they live is no longer of themselves, but it's

Christ living within them. That because of that, Paul did not nullify the law.

He did not make it void, but instead he was saved by the grace of God. And again, the whole idea is not the idea of faith or repentance or anything like that.

It's the idea that there can be any continued extra second sacrifice that must be added to the work of Christ to make the atonement of Christ sufficient in any individual's life.

You may be able to find support for it in the Book of Mormon, but obviously that would hold very little water for me.

Because biblically, I do not think there is any support for that. Again, you keep wording this in a way which is,

I think, a clever twisting of the statements of the church leaders. You quote them, and then you go on to say, well, this is what they're saying.

But again, as I have read and studied the writings of the church leaders, including McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith and Brigham Young and others,

I don't see them saying what you are imposing upon them as being their position, that you've got to take the atonement of Christ and then add something to it.

What they're talking about is a penalty. What they're talking about is something that, if you have committed a sin that is grievous in nature to a certain extent, the thrust of what they're saying is that in ancient times when the law of God was in effect in these respects, you would suffer death.

You would be put to death based upon this particular principle, and there would be no other sacrifice.

There would be nothing else that could take the place of your own life being taken had you committed certain grievous sins.

And that idea is, you know, we could sit here and talk for hours just reading passages in the scriptures that present that very idea.

Well, Van, you keep saying I'm carefully twisting, and yet you keep avoiding the very clear fact that all the references

I've read, and I could read many others, either use the term remit sin or atone for sin.

You are the one I feel is twisting it by saying, well, that's a penalty. Well, okay, it's a penalty, fine, but what they're saying is that that shedding of blood atones or remits sin.

It's not just simply a penalty. It's saying that the blood of that man remits sin. Now, I read that, and I've read the passage that says atone and remit.

They've spoken the English language. I know what those two words mean, and it's very clear what they're saying.

And again, as we have done, as I have had to do many times before, as we have spoken,

I would say to anyone listening, read them yourself and look at them in their whole context.

Read the English language yourself and see if they're saying this is a penalty or if they're saying this is the avenue by which this sin is remitted and atoned for.

And if you can get something out of Joseph Feeley Smith saying, beyond the atoning blood of Christ, beyond the power of the atoning blood of Christ, if you can get something out of that other than what

I've said, fine, wonderful, but look at them yourself and see if that's not exactly what they were saying.

I couldn't emphasize that stronger myself. I think, for example, I don't know whether you've ever read one of these discourses that you cite from or whether you've just read little passages that you've picked up here and there.

Let me just ask you then if you could just tell me what was the purpose for the discourse, any one of these that you're talking about, what was the purpose?

I mean, what was the message that they were trying to put across? That would depend on the particular one, most of the time.

No, it really doesn't. It really doesn't depend because they had a common theme throughout these particular discourses.

Well, for example, in Journal Discourses, Volume 4, where you have the most of them, you have the idea of discipline coming up over and over again, the disciplining of the people of God, as they call themselves, the idea of faithfulness to covenants, many ideas like this coming up, obviously, and the whole

Reformation idea that was going on was based on all of that. But again,

I really see that it's very clear what they're saying. They're not out of context.

It's very clear what they're presenting. And the point, again, comes back to what I've said over and over again. I've repeated it so many times,

I'm not going to waste your time to repeat everything I've said before. I think it's very clear what they are saying.

What they're saying was that this sacrifice, this blood atonement, and that's the very term we use, blood atonement, atonement, remission of sins is another word he used, remits sins, atones for sins.

Now, if you're assuming that he's using biblical terminology, as you said before, then there's only one way to understand those things.

Okay, now let me suggest what the thrust, I mean, you know, I think any of these statements need to be considered within the context of which they were given.

And that context, of course, was its Reformation in 1857, wherein they were not, their purpose in talking about these subjects, they were not teaching the idea of blood atonement as you make reference to it.

What they were doing, this is an incidental part of what they were talking about, what they were doing is they were going up and down the

Wasatch Front, warning people of the strict penalties of God that would apply in circumstances where those who have advanced in the

Gospel to the point of the Latter -day Saints here along the Wasatch Front, if they were to commit certain grievous sins, these are the penalties of God, this is what the law of God would require in these certain circumstances.

And that was the thrust of the message. I mean, that's what they were saying, that's why they were talking about it. They were talking about, here's what will happen, or what should happen, if the law of God were in effect, if you break these covenants and promises that you've made, and if you commit certain grievous sins.

It was strong preaching. They were not out trying to advocate that here is a principle that you need to understand, and that is that to your blood, you sinful people, your blood is more efficacious than the blood of Christ.

That was not what they were trying to present, no matter how many times you restate that. Well, again,

I would just simply say that if a person will read these passages for themselves, they'll see that no matter what the goal they're eventually going for, and obviously people would say that the actual goal was the solidification of Brigham Young's home, the

Church, and all the rest of this stuff, whatever the goal was, the theological basis upon which the statements were made is the idea that there can be anything for which the blood of Christ cannot atone for, and at the same time, that those certain sins can be atoned for by the blood of the man.

They said atone, they said remit, they said the words, look at them yourself, you'll find that's exactly what they said, and I don't know,

I personally feel like I'm beating a dead horse on this one, because I think it's very clear. It's very straightforward, very easily seen, and I think it's just part and parcel of what we see in an entire erroneous understanding of what atonement is, and what the biblical position on that is, both in this and in other areas that I've brought up relevant to the atonement.

The priesthood, the idea of sacrifice, the whole nine yards. Okay, with that, obviously you think that I'm misunderstanding this.

I think I have cited enough information to demonstrate my point, you think you've demonstrated your point, and I would strongly suggest, as you would, that those who are listening go ahead and look at the material themselves, and of course what

I would suggest is actually look at the material, to think that you will get a clear, accurate presentation of this idea from literature which is written strongly critical of the

LDS point of view, is of course, I think, an erroneous thought and part of my criticism in the first place.

So, you know, I think you're saying to the listeners, go ahead, find, if you're interested in the subject, go to the sources, look at it, and see what you think the sources are saying.

Okay, we do have, in fact, we've ignored several callers. Let's try this,

Jim. Okay, I do have a radio on here, Van, so I may be able to hear him over it. I'm going to put you on hold, and then we're going to go to this caller and just see if we can work this out to where we can all kind of talk somehow or other.

So hold on here. You're on KZZI. Yes, Van, in that document that your guest has been reading from, does it at any place state that the person in having his blood shed is atoning for his sin?

Because that wasn't clear to me. Okay, ask that just one more time. Okay, at the beginning of that document from Bruce L.

McConkie, where he was stating the church's position, he begins by saying the so -called doctrine of blood atonement, evidencing that he is objecting to that description of the doctrine.

Now, is there anywhere, because I wasn't quite sure, I didn't hear it, it wasn't repeated enough for me to grasp it, is there anywhere in that statement of Bruce L.

McConkie's where he says that the person is atoning for his own sin? Is that the phrase that is used?

Well, I suppose that that could be inferred. But this is actually said. Well, let me read this one statement.

In order to understand what Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Charles W. Penrose, and others have said, we must mention that there are some sins for which the blood of Christ alone does not cleanse a person.

There is another statement in here, if I could find it quickly, where he indicates that there is no remission of sins for any person under any circumstance apart from the atonement of Jesus Christ.

So even the individual, and of course this is a point that I would have stressed were

I able to do this in the midst of the discussion, but a point that I would stress is that blood atonement means nothing in the thinking of any of these individuals without the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

So it sounds like, if I might add here, that it is indeed a system where a person is doing his part to show that he is willing, that he is genuinely sorry.

For example, if I stole from you, Van, then if I said

I was sorry and repented and refused to give the money back, though it was in my power, then I think my repentance is certainly insincere.

On the other hand here, when we have a sin unto death, which the Apostle John himself mentions, without being very specific about it however, it would seem reasonable to me that the only way you cannot give back that person's life but you can show that you value his life as much as yours.

I would rather put it the other way around, that you set the same value on your own life and are willing to do what

Noah suggested, or what the Lord said to Noah previous to the law of Moses, that by man shall his blood be shed.

And if a person voluntarily submits to that, surely he is showing that he values that person's life who he has taken, who is also presumably a sinner to some extent, that he values that life as much as his own life.

Well, there is, in my mind, I think to me it's very clearly presented throughout the

Old Testament, the idea that the blood of certain things can atone for certain sins, while the term atonement of course is not used in reference to any of these things in the

Old Testament, including the shedding of man's blood.

But the idea certainly seems to me to be clearly there that certain sins that a person can commit are remitted based upon the fact of the sacrifice of a certain animal.

You know, these are handled in a certain way. But you get to certain serious sins, and these are only handled in a certain way, and it's the same thing.

It's the shedding of blood. But it's not the blood of the animal, which is shed as a replacement for taking the life of the man, but the man himself in certain instances where the sin is serious, the blood of that man itself is shed.

And there is a passage in Numbers 25, and in Numbers 25 the idea is presented there that of a man's blood being shed as an atonement for certain sins that had been committed.

And you know, it's an interesting subject, and I know Jim has a different point of view on it than I have, and that's fine.

He has a different point of view than Brigham Young has on it, and I might differ with Brigham Young on my point of view about it too, but that's not really the issue as I see it.

He doesn't seem to believe that Brigham Young perhaps or the others. I wish I could talk to him directly, and I can. If he had gotten himself up there into the studio, it would have been a lot better.

Well, he got up here and was very, very sick, and in fact we were only going to talk for a few minutes, and we probably taxed him to some extent.

I do appreciate his being here. I hope he gets well. But let me say this, and finally though,

I think it is the no -win situation when you both say, this is what a certain person said, and then when they themselves describe what they said, they say, yes, but he's lying.

Because if he's lying, maybe he was lying the first time. You know, you have to go by what he says and give him that much credit, otherwise you really can't argue with him.

Okay, well, I appreciate your call. Well, I'm enjoying the discussion. It's been a little frustrating. I wish to help next time he is fit and well and in good health and enjoying life and can come to the studio.

Well, we'll have him back next time he's in town. All right. Thank you, Ben. Thank you. Kim, I'm going to go back to Jim White now for some comment on his part, but also

I have, as I had mentioned, I have a commitment that I cannot avoid, and I'm going to leave now, and Alma and Jim are going to continue and our callers.

So let me go back and see if Jim has a comment he'd like to make on this point.

Okay, let's go back to Jim. Okay, thank you, Van. I couldn't hear anything on hold, but I do have a radio, so I was able to catch what the gentleman had said, and I appreciate the fact that you wished me to recover.

I definitely wanted to be there. As you know, Van, I certainly would not do anything like this to avoid a direct one -on -one talk, because you and I have done that for many, many hours before, and we'll probably do so again in the future.

But I am definitely ill, but fortunately I'm just laying here in bed talking to you on the phone so I can survive that.

But I think what the man originally asked was, he had asked about the quote from Bruce R.

McConkie that I had read, with the phrase, so called, the tone appeared, and that is

Mormon Doctrine, page 92. I did not insert that phrase in there.

That is in the book. It's under Blood Atonement Doctrine, and he might want to read that section if he was confused as to what

I was quoting from Bruce R. McConkie at that point. Okay. Okay, well, thank you.

This is Alma again. I hope I don't blow up the station here all alone at the controls. You'll have to speak up if I'm going to hear you.

I guarantee it. Okay, can you hear me now? Yes, I can hear you. All right. We have another call. If you want to hang on, we'll let her say a comment, and we'll get back to you.

Sounds good. Hang on. You're on KCGI? Yes, I understand Van left, and there's somebody on with him taking it over, and I missed the name, sir.

My name is Alma. Alma? Alma whom? Alma Allred. Allred?

Yes. Oh, I think I've talked to you years ago. You may have.

Yeah, I remember the name. I wasn't sure. You know, I thought for a while.

I knew I'd called an Alma, and I couldn't remember whether it was LeBaron or whether it was Allred. That must have been you.

I don't think there's an Alma LeBaron, is there? There probably is. I wouldn't doubt it.

There might be, you mean? There may be. Well, on the subject you're on about this atoning part, could

I speak to what I understand? Sure. Why don't you make a comment? My understanding is that through Christ's blood, every man is resurrected, but then they're judged according to their works.

So, you know, I mean, unless they're born of God's spirit and doing a fulfilled thing in unity with him, then they're not absolved of that judgment is the way

I understand it. And that has nothing to do with how many good do's and don'ts you do. It's whether you surrender to God is my understanding.

Now, I'd like to go through a few of the Mormon scriptures with you. Ma 'am, Mrs. B.,

we have a lot of people that would talk, so if you'd probably just make one comment, then we could go on. Well, there's parts of the

Mormon scriptures. There's Alma that was supposed to have killed and murdered many people, and he didn't shed his blood.

He repented in Alma 36 chapter. Third Nephi, Christ says that thou shalt not kill, and whoever shall kill shall be in the danger of the judgment of God.

But it doesn't say somebody's supposed to go out and kill him. And then Doctrine and Covenants 64 section tells you that God will forgive whom he will, but it is up to men to forgive all men.

Okay. So those are the ones I'll share with you. Thank you for your call. You with me?

Yeah, I'm still here. I've talked with Mrs. B. before outside the temple, and I guess the only thing that I could add to at least my comment was something she had said about resurrection and judgment by works, because, of course,

Revelation chapter 20 is a very common verse that I've had many LDS missionaries bring up and say we're all going to be judged by our works.

I've tried to point out to them that the Christian has been judged in Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary.

In John 5, 24, Jesus says, Truly, truly, I say to you, anyone who hears my word and believes in him who sent me has everlasting life and shall not come into judgment, but is passed out of death into life.

I've tried to express that before to the caller outside the temple, and I'm sure I probably will again in the future.

For someone who doesn't do this for a living, Elmer, you do a good job. Well, I do my best.

Do you want to go on anywhere else? Well, you had mentioned there's one thing I'd like to point out. One of the comments you said, and if the other caller would just hang on for a second, you said that the

LDS church denied that polygamy was continuing or that anyone was living in plural marriage.

I think that's a little addition on your part. They never denied that anyone was living in polygamous relations.

No, I think what I was referring to there, Elmer, was the idea that the official position of the church after the

Manifesto was this is not sanctioned by the church, and there seems to be evidence that even the early church leaders beyond that time, for years beyond that time, sanctioned plural marriages, for example, in Mexico and in places like that.

What I was saying was, okay, the official statement of the church leadership was no polygamy, and yet in practice there were still those who were engaging in it.

The point I was making was, okay, here's the official church. Van was reading the official church statement about blood atonement, and the point again was, okay, it's the official church statement, but that does not necessarily mean that it wasn't going on, because we've seen in other times when those things were going on, and there was a strong, obviously, a very strong sentiment amongst

Mormons that Wilford Woodruff had sold out. That's where you have a lot of the origins of the polygamist fundamentalist movement.

Jim, I don't think you can really legitimately say that there was a real strong movement that Wilford Woodruff had sold out.

In fact, most of the fundamentalists really didn't even make themselves known until the early 1920s, when they apparently had had quite a while to think about it and then decide that he had sold out.

Well, I had, because most of them were still living in polygamy anyway, but that's irrelevant. The point was, my statement was irrelevant.

The point was that the official statement was being made, and yet the practice was going on, at least in a limited sense, and therefore it would be logical to assume, or at least to allow for the idea, that an official statement could be made saying blood atonement doesn't occur.

Of course not. It's against the law of the land. And yet, if it was a part of, you know, if mankind thinks that something is

God's law, he's more than willing to break man's law to keep God's law, if he's really dedicated to something.

The very existence of the fundamentalist polygamist communities in Utah and northern

Arizona and Idaho and places like that demonstrates very clearly that that is true. And obviously, if someone feels that blood atonement is a valid law of God, and even though, for example,

Bruce R. McConkie would say, this doctrine can only be practiced in its fullness in a day when the civil and ecclesiastical laws are administered in the same hands, which of course would make a number of politicians quake in their boots to even hear him say that.

But, you know, if they reject what McConkie says about that and say, I don't care if the civil law says you don't do this.

It's God's law. It must be done. Okay, Jim, I think also you have to take into consideration the historical concepts.

As soon as it was practicable, Brigham Young announced to the world that plural marriage was to be promulgated by the

Church, and there came up from that time laws that were passed against it, and the

Church went through a legal constitutional questioning of those laws against plural marriage.

And when the constitutionality was ruled upon after what I would consider a very brief time of attempting to see if that may not be reversed, the

Church submitted to that law. And the Church has always, since the beginning of the

Church, indicated that we believe in obeying the laws of the land. And to say that, well, we, you know, there are some offshoots that say, well, we don't have to obey the law of the land.

Those offshoots are offshoots. They're not members of the main body of the Church who has...

Well, at the same time, the point I was making was that, okay, the official statement said we've never done blood atonement.

Well, at the same time that Joseph Smith and the others were engaging in polygamy, during the time of Joseph Smith's actual life, you still have section 101 of the

DNC, I don't think it was 101 as I recall, saying that the law of the Church is one man, one wife.

Well, again, you have a discrepancy between the two, between the statement of the

Church, which was referred to by the Church leaders when the question would come up, hey, look, our scriptures say one man, one wife.

Of course, that section has been removed, and we know now anyways that those situations were evolving, and that polygamy was understood.

I mean, even the introduction to section 132 in the 1981 edition of the

Doctrine and Covenants says there in the indirectory section, of course, it's not inspired or anything like that,

I understand that, but in the official Church version, it says that these concepts, that although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records, that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the prophets since 1831.

And so, again, sometimes the official statement is not perfectly contiguous with official practice.

Okay, and Jim, I would say that the historical background of that quote -unquote official statement would belie what you're saying.

I mean, Oliver Cowdery wrote that and inserted it while Joseph Smith was out.

Joseph Smith did not give approval for that to be inserted in the Doctrine and Covenants.

I think that's a pretty historical concept. Had he been there, it would not have been published.

At the same time, I don't have the particular... Polygamy is one issue that, in fact,

I normally tell those who come up with this, don't even bother talking about it, it's predominantly irrelevant to the modern

Mormon, but there is a section, for example, from Joseph Smith himself, where well after he was already engaged in polygamy, and this is admitted by Mormon scholars themselves, he was saying, you know,

I've heard that it's said that I have 14 wives, but I can only find one, and da -da -da -da -da -da -da. And I think that could be demonstrated very clearly.

Again, the point was, okay, Van read the section from the church leadership saying, this never happened, but I think that I've got pretty solid ground upon which to say,

I'm not sure if that in and of itself proved that it didn't. Because the church leadership made it clear that they were willing to follow

God's law as they perceived it, rather than man's law, even after they made the official statement that, hey, we're not engaging in polygamy anymore, and yet the church leaders were.

Okay, we have someone else in the studio who would like to make a comment. Daryl Thorpe. Yes, my name is Daryl Thorpe.

I do a program on this station called Out of the Best Books, and I'd just like to make a few comments.

All the best books? Out of the best books. Out of the best books, okay. And, you know,

I think, are you familiar with human sacrifice being an occultic practice?

Well, of course. The Mayans and others were the Toltecs, the Olmecs. How about modern -day occultists?

Yeah, I suppose you go over to San Francisco, and I've definitely heard stories of it. Okay. What type of a judgment should we put upon Abraham, who, as Josephus puts it, and Josephus being a

Jewish historian around the time of John Revelator's time, tells about how that Abraham concealed it from his wife and from his servants that he was going to do a human sacrifice?

Well, A, Josephus lived many thousands of years after Abraham, but how he would know that, of course, would be based upon tradition and the very same sources that you'd get the

Kabbalah and other things, that of Jewish mysticism. What type of a judgment would we put upon, I mean, if Josephus' works is an authentic work,

I mean, if we're going to be considering writings and different historical facts as facts, what type of a judgment would we put on him?

Another point, what type of a judgment would we put on Christ when he taught, according to the scriptures, that if anybody offended a little one, it would be better that a millstone be hanged around his neck than be dropped in the depths of the sea.

Well, I'm definitely not following where you're going or where you're coming from. You wouldn't happen to stand outside the temple during conference yourself, would you?

Well, as a matter of fact, yeah, I've been out there. Yeah, okay, I thought I knew who I was talking to. We've spoken before.

I think maybe we've talked before. Do you have a big notebook with photocopies and stuff in it?

I have, yes, I have a lot of... Okay, all right. Let me just kind of continue on with some of the things

I was trying to point out. What I was trying to lead up to is that if we're supposed to take people's statements literal, why shouldn't we take

Christ's statement literal, the one that I referred to earlier?

I can't remember exactly where that's found. Well, it's found in the Gospel of Luke. I think it's about 16th, 17th chapters.

And, of course, Jesus is saying there that it would be better for him if that had happened to him. I don't see how you're interpreting that as a way

Jesus... Just as a comment, how would it have been better, do you think? Excuse me? Just as a comment, how do you think it could have been better for him if that would have happened?

Well, the same way when Jesus said it would be better if Judas had never been born, rather than betray Christ, because punishment in hell is a rather serious subject that Jesus brings up over and over and over again and talks about it very, very frequently.

Relative to the caller we just had, I'm confused. Obviously, you're not, Alma. You must know that person.

But relevant to what he said concerning Baptism and Regeneration, Acts 2 .38,

obviously, he'd be closer with you at that point, at least in some ways. But he seemed to appreciate my saying that from the tone of voice that I could hear.

But I would say that the Atonement of Christ and salvation is

God's sovereign work. It is not dependent upon man's works to begin it, to complete it, to finish it, or anything else.

How about to make it efficacious? Or even to make it efficacious. I'm not sure what he was referring to relevant to you all, but I guess you get to answer him and not me since he was picking on you, too.

I'll have to introduce you to Art if we can get the chance. He's usually standing outside the

Temple Gates like a lot of your people are. Oh, okay. I don't know if you've seen him before.

I don't know. We've been up here for quite some time. About the same people I know outside the Temple Gates as Mrs.

B and you. I think he's easily recognizable as the one, mighty and strong.

Oh. Okay, well, I think we have, do we have another call? Let's see if we can get that other caller on. Hang on a second.

You're on KZZI. Yes. In Acts 10, there are some people who received the

Holy Spirit. They hadn't been baptized. It's interesting.

You know, in the Hebrew, Alma means betrothed, Hebrew virgin maiden.

I thought that was interesting. Yeah, it is. It's also apparently a man's name. In the

Book of Mormon. Well, not only in the Book of Mormon. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, there was a transaction between a fellow named

Alma. It's in the Jewish Historical Museum. If you wanted to find the reference for it, it's in the

Timely and the Timeless. If you just look up the word Alma, it'll give you the reference where it's referred to.

The name Alma is referred to as a masculine name. Okay. And, you know, in the

Inspired Version, the Joseph Smith New Translation of the Bible, I compare that Book of Revelation with the

Book of Revelation in either the King James or any of the other translations we have today, which are based on the best

Greek manuscripts we have. You know, there's a warning at the end of that. So if anybody takes away from this or adds to it,

I'll have his part of the Book of Life taken away, and I'll add to him the plagues. And Joseph Smith added to the

Book of Revelation, and he took away from the Book of Revelation. Mm -hmm. Don't you think that's a marvelous testimony?

Well, I think what you have to do is consider it in its light. Of course, that statement occurs more than five times in the

Bible, or maybe five times. It occurs in Deuteronomy, where it says, No one shall add to or take away from these prophecies.

And I think, obviously, there were people who added to the words of Moses, or we would not have had the

Book of Isaiah or the Book of Ezekiel or even the New Testament. It would seem that that indication, not to add to or take away from the words of God, would apply to uninspired man.

Now, I would claim that Joseph Smith was inspired to do what he did, as well as was

Isaiah and any other prophet who lived. And so, I would say that that would not apply in that condition.

You know, it's also interesting to know that even John himself added to Scripture, because the

Bible, as we have it, did not come as a compilation of the whole

Bible. I believe the Greek word for it means the books.

It means the books. And, you know, it came to us as a collection of different writings that were gathered together.

And there was also some writings that were considered as canonical Scriptures that were later taken out. You're a

Mormon? Yes, yes. Okay. And I'm sure you're familiar with Apocryphos, and there's other books that some of your early 18th century

Bibles contain. I wrote a contract, say, and I said,

I don't want anybody adding to this. And somebody could come along and add to it. He may have the right to take that contract unbeknownst to me, or if I wasn't the hero anymore,

I couldn't say anything about it. But it would be against the intent of what I wanted. Deuteronomy 6 .4,

you know, the Shema, hero Israel, Jehovah, our Elohim, the Lord is one. In Mormon theology, though, isn't

Jehovah and Elohim different people? Well, I think what you'd have to do is look at the application that the

Church has made. Beginning in about 1914, I think, the first presidency said, from this point on, we will refer to Elohim as the

Father and Jehovah as the Son. But it's pretty clear from historical perspective among Mormons that there were times when

Joseph Smith referred to the Father as Jehovah. And simply, the word

Elohim is the Hebrew word for God, and may be applied in any injunction,

I would think. One last thing, I think, to the Doctrine and Covenants. There are some things

Joseph Smith talks about Elias visiting him, referring to what's mentioned in the

New Testament. Then it's the other words, Elijah. And yet, Elias is merely the Greek form of the

Hebrew Elijah. Maybe you can comment on that, I'll listen to that. Well, let me get

Jim back on the line, hang on a second. Ah, thank you. Much nicer when

I'm on the line. I would like to hear your comment on Joseph Smith seeing

Elias and Elijah. Well, Joseph Smith... That's pretty tricky. I think it's pretty clear that Joseph Smith did understand that Elijah was

Elijah, and that Elias was also the Greek equivalent of Elijah.

But Joseph Smith also taught that people came in the spirit and power of Elias, or Elijah, and it could have been used either way, just like John the

Baptist did. John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah. He wasn't Elijah, but he came in his spirit and his power, so to speak.

I'm not sure, I think it's Matthew 17, where the Savior comments on it after the...

Transfiguration. After the transfiguration, where the apostles asked Jesus, how then, say, the scribes, that Elias must first come?

Right. And Jesus' answer was, Elias shall come and restore all things, but he has come already.

I would indicate that to mean, in fact, that Jesus put that in the future tense, that he shall come, that that was an indication that Elijah would return, but that an

Elijah has already been among them, and that they kill him. Well, of course, take this in the fact that I consider you to be a friend, but I think you're talking circles around that one.

But there's a bunch of things that were brought up while I was on hold there. First of all, when you quote

Deuteronomy 4 .2, you need to look at it. It says, you shall not add unto the words, the Lord thy God shall give thee.

It was not saying that there will not be any more further revelation after this, but that you shall not add to those words that he does give you.

I've had Deuteronomy 4 .2 thrown up at me so many times, saying, well, if that's what it means, then there shouldn't be a revelation past Deuteronomy.

No, it very clearly opens the door for continued revelation after that, but just prohibits human addition to that which came up.

And that's what I would agree with you. I would say, yes, it prohibits human addition, as does revelation. But you know that most scholars believe that the book of Revelation preceded the book of John.

I'm not so sure about that at all. For example, I think that they'd be given a different order in most conservative scholars, such as A .T.

Roberts and somebody else. But my point is, I don't argue that point. That order is because of the conclusion put in the last book of Revelation.

I really don't argue that point as much as I do saying, let's examine the teachings of these various supposed revelations and see if they're harmonious.

Another thing that was brought up by your guest in the studio there, relevant to the idea of canonical scriptures being removed, and said some things that just made no sense at all, but, for example, the idea of the

Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was proclaimed as canonical to Council of Trent in 1546, in direct opposition to the

Protestant Reformation. I'm not sure about that.

I think you would know my opinion on that, in that the idea of a canon was established in answer to the threat of Christianity, and that the

Christians at the time of Christ had no concept of, this book here is inspired, and this book is not inspired.

Oh, but I think they did. I think they did. For example, the canon of the

Old Testament, the Palestinian canon of the 39 books, was very firmly entrenched.

Even the famous Council of Jamnia was not relevant to canonization so much as other issues.

And you'll find that Jesus and the Apostles never, in the scriptures, had an argument with the

Pharisees and Sadducees or anybody else about what was and what was not scripture. And that's what

I'm saying. I don't think that ever came up. And it wouldn't come up in what I would consider an

LDS environment to say, well, this book we're not going to accept. It's always been interesting to me,

Ben and I have talked about this numerous times, and he's brought up the Apocrypha, and I guess Daryl, is that the name? Yeah.

Yeah, Daryl brought it up too, and yet I've never met a Mormon who thought the Apocrypha was inspired, which makes the entire thing rather irrelevant.

It's sort of like, I think it was about a year ago this April, or it might have been last October, no, I think it was about a year ago this

April, Daryl showed me a photocopy of the Revised Standard Version, or he was at the

King James, with the changes marked between the translations. The King James and the RSV.

And I think that is something along the lines of what we're talking about here, because that shows a very great lack of understanding of what the

Bible is, where the Bible came from, why we have, for example, I'm sitting here looking at the New International Version, we've talked a little bit about that,

Alma, why we have the King James, the RSV, these things like that. So essentially you believe the

Bible as far as it is translated, correct? Not exactly in the same Mormon context. I believe in the

Bible as it was inspired by the Holy Spirit, as it was written in the originals, and I have done a good deal of studying textual criticism.

I can read both Hebrew and Greek. My Hebrew is terrible compared to my Greek. I'm trying to read it, I know. Oh man, you can almost read it upside down, it makes no sense.

Anyhow, I understand those areas and where the Bible is coming from, and it's on those points, saying that, well,

Deuteronomy 6 -4, the Shema, or Deuteronomy 4 -35, it says Yahweh, He is

Ha -Elohim, He is the God. Well, those are mistranslated. I can't tell you how many times

I've had that told me. I know you wouldn't do that. But I've had that told to me over and over and over again, and I see the Eighth Article of Faith being used mainly, by most of the people

I talk to, as an escape valve for passages that seem to be contradictory. Yeah, that could be true.

Well, you know, I see this sort of thing going on too with Christians.

As soon as Scripture is brought up where they don't particularly agree with what is being said there, then all of a sudden it seems like they have to go back to the books on Greek and Hebrew.

I have no problem with this. Well, obviously you don't. To me, it seems like they must believe the

Bible to be the Word of God as far as it's translated correctly also. Just another point

I'd like to bring up too, I think that if we were to agree that if God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and He's given

Scriptures when the Bible was written, if He's not given Scriptures today,

He must have changed. Well, again, that's a completely irrelevant argument, because we don't have animal sacrifice today either, but we did at one time.

Well, that sounds like... You know, Hebrews 13 .8 says Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

It does not say that God does the exact same things that He did yesterday, today, and will do them into eternity, because obviously that means that we would never have an eschaton, an end of these things, an eternal state, or anything else.

So that is an argument that completely ignores the entire revelation of the

Bible as well as the context of Hebrews 13 .8. The problem that I see is I don't see any revelation declaring the end of revelation.

And I know that certain Scriptures are brought up, but when I examine these Scriptures in the proper context, it's just not there.

Well, Darrell, forgive me, but I'd say that from things that I've read of yours,

I'm not sure if you understand proper context and proper interpretive method, but the point that I would bring up is a tract we'll also be passing out tomorrow called

Jesus is Sufficient. It is a tract that deals with the sufficiency of Christ, and any other revelation that would come after this would have to reveal something more, something higher than the revelation of Jesus Christ Himself.

And Al and I have talked about this numerous times as we've sat there staring at our little green computer screens. Is your screen green?

Yes. Ah, yes. So you see little lines and you go to bed too. Yes. But we've talked about this.

But I think it will be presented in that tract that we believe that the revelation of Jesus Christ and the full plan of salvation is very clearly the ultimate revelation.

And when you look at the Mormon plan of salvation, including priesthoods and so many other topics we've talked about,

I see it as a step backwards, back into the old system of a sacrificing priesthood. But Jim, I think you're choosing there to ignore the passages of the

New Testament that speak of priesthoods. And the fact that...

Relevant to what? It's clear to me that the... And I hate to bring it up in this way and say that the fact that Christianity is fragmented is an illustration that it's false, because you can say, well,

Mormonism is fragmented at the same time. But I'm saying that you have Christian churches, for example, your particular faith will say that it is grace alone, that's it, by faith.

Whereas a member from the Church of Christ will say, well, it is by grace alone, by faith.

But that faith is demonstrated because you have to keep the commandments. You have to obey certain principles.

Oh, I agree with you. And personally, I'll be very honest with you, I see the Church of Christ being closer to you soteriologically than to me.

But what I'm saying is, if the Bible were enough, it would be clear enough to say, this is what it is.

Now, for you it's clear enough to read the Bible and you get what you get. And to me, I can look at, for example, the passage

I've quoted you many times from Hebrews, that Jesus being made perfect, he has become the author of eternal salvation to those that obey him.

And that, for me, implicitly states that we have to obey Christ. And otherwise, he is not the author of our salvation.

Again, I think the difference there, and I think the point that I keep bringing out, or should keep bringing out, is do we interpret the scriptures as inspired or as not inspired?

In other words, was the same Holy Spirit behind the writer of Hebrews as behind the writing of Paul's epistles?

Of course, I know most Mormons think that Paul wrote Hebrews. As you obviously are aware, there are a lot of people who disagree.

As well as, were they inspired to write the Book of Mormon? Excuse me? Well, the whole idea when you look at the

Bible is, in interpreting the scriptures, is am I going to interpret them and make them contradictory? Or am

I going to interpret them realizing that, as Peter said, holy men spoke from God as they were carried along by the

Holy Spirit? And when you allow for interpretation in harmony, if you will look at a situation and say, now, okay, here are maybe two or three possible meanings, but only one of them is harmonious with the author himself and with the rest of scripture, then obviously you're not going to take an interpretation that is completely, totally off the wall.

Let me give you an example. I've been debating a rather nationally known atheist in his own publication called Biblical Errancy of Late.

And he basically said that the Bible is contradictory because Jesus said in Matthew, Thou shalt not kill.

And Paul said in Romans 13, Thou shalt not murder. Now, I point out to him it's the exact same

Greek phrase the whole nine yards. But his whole style in his publication, which comes out every month, is if it's possible to be contradictory, we'll take it.

It doesn't matter if it can be harmonized. It doesn't matter if there's another logical alternative. If it's contradictory, then we'll take that viewpoint, and that's obviously what it is.

Well, if you interpret the scripture in that way, obviously you're going to make it a mishmash. But if you believe the Holy Spirit has only revealed one plan of salvation, one way of salvation, then you're going to balance what the writer of Hebrews said about obedience, and I have nothing against obedience, but you're going to balance that against the teachings, for example, of the

Book of Romans, the gospel according to Paul, the spot -out revelation of exactly how the gospel works.

I mean, the clearest section of the Bible talks about that subject and that subject predominantly only all the way through the 11th chapter.

And you're not going to interpret them to make them contradictory with one another. That is, of course, if you accept the interpretation. But the thing is,

Jim, you're assuming from that position that the Mormons interpret those passages as contradictory, and we don't.

No, I'm saying that that passage in Hebrews is very, very important to you, obviously, because it keeps arriving in my mailbox all the time.

And it keeps arriving because I don't think that you really have been able to address that.

No, I haven't really had an opportunity to completely address that. And believe me, it's been something that's been in the back of my mind that I've wanted to do.

And I plan on doing so, in that in June I will be presenting a six -month, verse -by -verse study of the

Book of Romans. To me? Not to you. You're coming to Phoenix, that's it. No, but I will be taping it, and of course you'll be on my list of folks to get that.

But I think that there is a very clear, definite understanding of what salvation is that is not the

Mormon idea. I do not think that Mormon theology takes into consideration such themes as are picked up by Romans, as picked up by Ephesians.

I think it takes in certain areas, sure, fine. Well, Jim, and I think you think that probably because you're not aware of what the

Mormon teaching is, the actual doctrine. Well, that's very convenient to say. Let me point out something, Jim, if I may.

See, Mormons, and I'm not saying that there might be some Mormons out there that might think that they're trying to work their way to Heaven and think that they have to do all these good works to be right with God and forget that love is what should be the motivator behind good works.

I think we have to take into consideration what Paul told the Corinthians, I believe it was

Paul, when he says that, Though I speak with the tongue of men and of angels, and goes on to list all these different works, and if I'm not motivated by love in doing these good works, then it profiteth me nothing.

And I think that's what Mormons should keep in mind, that we should be motivated by love in doing good works.

It's not something we have to do, it's something we want to do because we love God. Darrell, would you mind reminding some of those

BYU linebackers that are going to be standing very close to me tomorrow, could you stand next to me while we're there?

Jim, and I also think, I don't know, maybe I should bring this up in my letters, but the consistent usage of the word, if, throughout the

New Testament, where Paul says, I preach unto you the gospel, wherein ye are saved, if ye keep in remembrance the things that I've taught.

I agree, the various conditional sentences are very important, but I think the thing that Mormonism has completely missed is the origin of salvation and the power of salvation.

That's where we're mistaken. In fact, I brought a quote I'd like you to hear. I mentioned it to you last week. Can I quote from the

Pre -Earth Life book, page 10, too? Sure, who wrote that? I don't know who did, you know? No, in fact,

I've been trying to find out. The who? The Pre -Earth Life pamphlet that was distributed by a church,

I think it's out of print right now, but on page 10, it talks all about earning salvation, and Ellen and I have talked about that before.

This is Bruce R. McConkie from The Promised Messiah, and he says, when the prophets who were before Christ preached that salvation is free, they were announcing the same doctrine that would thereafter fall from apostolic lips in the pronouncement that we are saved by grace.

Free salvation is salvation by grace. The questions then are, what salvation is free?

What salvation comes by the grace of God? With all the emphasis of the rolling thunders of Sinai, we answer, all salvation is free.

All comes by the merits and mercy and grace of the Holy Messiah. There is no salvation of any kind, nature, or degree that is not bound to Christ and his atonement.

Specifically, our Lord's atoning sacrifice brings all men forth in the resurrection with immortal bodies, thus freeing them from death, hell, the devil, and endless torment.

And our Lord's atoning grace raises those who believe and obey, not only in immortality, but unto eternal life.

It raises them to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in God's everlasting kingdom forever. Okay, and again, that's similar to what he said in Mormon doctrine, where he said that, for example, universal salvation is salvation by grace only.

But individual salvation, i .e. exaltation, is salvation by grace, and you keep stressing that, and I'm not saying that Mormonism is not saying that salvation is not by grace, but I don't think it understands what grace is because it keeps adding to grace obedience to gospel ordinances and principles, per se.

And as Little Pamphlet put, which I'll say right off the bat, you took exception to, and I'm not saying that you didn't, but I'm just pointing out that if people are saying,

I don't understand what Mormonism is saying, well, y 'all have contributed to it very well by publishing such material and sending it out for public distribution.

But on page 10 of that pamphlet, it said, By revelation, our Savior made known again the plan of salvation and exaltation.

Resurrection comes as a gift to every man through Jesus Christ, but the reward of the highest eternal opportunities you must earn.

It is not enough just to believe in Jesus Christ. You must work and learn, search and pray, repent and improve, know His laws and live them.

And so, you know, I recall one of the first times I tracked the temple, a big, tall guy came by me. I handed a tract to him.

It was the first tract we'd ever written. It was photocopied, the dude. And he looked at it and said, Is this salvation by grace?

And I said, Yeah. He handed it back to me and said, Nope, it's not working. That's the only true church point of the temple, and walked into the members' entrance.

Well, I can understand how, you know, one episode of that may ruin your life.

It's not just one. Believe me. But the principle is, I don't know,

I would say that if you were to ask any Mormon, any Mormon anywhere, if they earn exaltation without Christ.

That's the thing. I'm not saying without Christ. Pardon? I'm not saying without Christ. I would not say that.

I understand it is part and parcel of Mormonism to attach the sacrifice of Jesus to that. But the point is, the all -sufficiency of His sacrifice, the idea of addition to His sacrifice is the point that I keep hammering on and keep trying to bring up.

If you add to it, you're saying it's not sufficient. It's not complete in and of itself. It is not all -efficacious.

That it is only half able to do what it is supposed to do. No, no, no. When you go from it is not all -efficacious to it is only half -efficacious.

Well, okay, 99 .9 percent. We're going, well, I'm saying that Mormon doctrine teaches that you are saved by grace.

You are exalted by grace. In fact, Nephi, as I have quoted to you before, he says, it is by grace we are saved, after all we can do.

After all we can do. Now remember, don't go translating that into some other language now. Pardon? Don't go translating that into some other language now.

It was written in English. All right, okay. There's another, we only have about 30 seconds left, but there's another thing that you might want to consider,

Jim, is if you're saying we are saved by works, I have no problem with that because it seems like to me you're also working as hard for my salvation as anybody else that I've seen by researching all these things out and by working.

Working hard for your salvation or my salvation? My salvation. You're standing outside Temple Gate doing all this research.

I think saying that that's a work isn't the same thing. I want to check one thing.

Pardon? I'd just like to mention real quickly that we'd be more than glad to talk to folks tomorrow down at the temple if they wanted to come by and say hello.

Where we were, you know, you place the emphasis on that one sentence in a different place than where I place it when we say we are saved by grace after all we can do.

You say we are saved by grace. In spite of all we've done. In spite of, well, that's what

I say, and that's how I say the meaning is, is that we are saved by grace. After all we can do, we are saved by grace.

Well, again. Okay, looks like we got our caller back, and we'll let you comment in a second. Hello, are you on the air?

Hi, guys. Hi. Were you the one we lost? Yeah. Okay, I apologize. So you lasted through the hour.

Yes. Congratulations. Thank you. A little while ago you were talking about blood atonement. Yes. Now, I've been listening for about the last 45 minutes.

I'm not quite clear if everybody stands on this. Now, who's LDS and who is anti -LDS? Well, I am

LDS. I think Jim White would take exception to being anti -LDS. He does not agree with LDS doctrines.

He is an ordained Baptist minister. Okay. An expert on the cults. And I'm a born -again

Mormon. No, just kidding. And Daryl here walked in on me to give me a hand with the board here, and I appreciate that.

And my name is Alma Allred, and I'm LDS. Okay, Mr. Allred. You were talking about blood atonement, and I guess the argument was over, does the doctrine of blood atonement mean that murderers must be executed or not?

No, actually, that was kind of a byproduct. That's kind of a byproduct. If you'd like to make a comment, go right ahead. Well, good, because I don't want to talk about that anyway.

I want to talk about blood atonement in general. Now, as I understand it, in the Old Testament, there was the principle of blood atonement that was done through animal sacrifice.

And that is that if a Hebrew committed a sin, he placed his hands on the head of an animal, and the sin was transferred to that animal, and the animal was then killed as a substitute or a scapegoat for the individual.

Am I correct? I would say symbolically, that's how I would understand that to mean, that the blood of goats and rams had no atoning power, as far as I understand it.

Then why was the whole thing done? I would say, as an illustration, in fact, the book of Moses teaches that the animal sacrifice was a type or a prefigure of the sacrifice of Christ, which would come.

I see. So the animal sacrifice was analogous to the sacrifice of Christ.

Right. Okay. So Christ was a, I guess you'd say

Christ was a sacrifice in the same sense, or he was the actual sacrifice for what the

Mosaic law was leading up to, or was supposed to teach people, which is that sin demands the blood or the death of the sinner or of a substitute for the sinner.

Uh -huh. Now, this is something I have a hard time understanding, because this doctrine, of course, this is the heart of Christianity, the atonement.

Uh -huh. And human sacrifice, as a principle, has been practiced religiously in many cultures.

I think the one that most Americans are familiar with is the Aztec culture, where young virgin girls who symbolized purity were given the sins of the tribe or the culture, and were sacrificed to the

Aztec gods. And in the Christian culture, we have the sacrifice of a pure human being, pure of Jesus Christ, to appease

God. What is the essential moral difference between the principle of pagan human sacrifice, which we abhor and consider to be barbarous, and the principle of Christian human sacrifice, which is the center of our religious culture?

Well, let me address that to Jim. I'd like to answer it, but we have another guest on the program, and I'd like to see how he answers it.

Is that okay with you? Sure. All right, hang on. Jim, did you catch the question?

Okay, well, I'd say the principle difference, aside from the fact that in the pagan cultures it was repeated over and over again, things like that, is that the word he used, it is true the term propitiation is used in the

New Testament relative to the sacrifice of Christ, and there was a sense in which the wrath of God was appeased, but it was

His wrath against sin, not wrath against individual persons.

And so I would say that the major difference is that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is presented also in scriptures as being the predetermined plan of God Himself, that God was the one who was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.

And the idea of human sacrifice, again, relative to blood atonement, I think it would be barbaric for a person who was a sinful being who had the curse upon him to be sacrificed for sin, because that's what makes it barbaric in the first place.

There's no way for that to work. And Jim, I would simply add to that that the barbaric custom of sacrificing humans was what

I would consider a satanic distortion of a true principle given to us by God that His Son would come and die for us.

Oh, all the way back in Genesis 3 .15 you have the promise of the coming one through the seed of the woman, and obviously satanic counterfeits are going to be found in almost any area relative to the truth of God's revelation.

Okay, let me see if our caller has one other comment, and then I'll come back to you, Jim. Okay. Did you have any other comments, sir?

Yeah, I'm afraid that doesn't quite explain why. Why does God in the first place set up such a plan?

Why does God want blood? And I can't understand saying that a pagan sacrifice is a satanic counterfeit of God's divine human sacrifice.

That's sort of like saying Hitler's genocide of the Jews is a pagan counterfeit of Moses' genocide of the

Canaanites. Both are barbaric and vicious. Okay, let me go back to Jim and let him address that too.

Hang on a second. All right. You there? Yes, you're getting really good at this. Okay. I would say, first of all, you said, why does

God want blood? Blood in the scriptures, of course, is a type, a picture of the life, and obviously all this goes back to, again,

I think a real basic misunderstanding. It is the nature of sin and the position of man in sin, that man is dead in sin, and that when it says that God demands blood, he's talking about life.

He's not just talking about the barbaric pagan sacrifices. They were looking for blood.

The blood itself was a central element. It was not the idea of life. It was not the idea of atonement.

The Hebrew term meant to cover over. It was not relevant to the idea of healing, the relationship between God and man.

You will not find in pagan sacrifices the idea of reconciliation, of adoption, the family of God.

These type of ideas are absent from these, quote -unquote, pagan sacrifices that are part and parcel, not only of the

Christian viewpoint of the atonement, but of Jesus' own teaching and how Jesus himself interpreted his death and taught his disciples about what his death was going to accomplish.

So I see, personally, a very big difference. And if I could only add to that, I'd say that the subject of the atonement is something that couldn't be covered on a two -hour program or a two -month program.

Oh, of course, right. The idea, at least, is central in Mormon theology that Adam fell, and in order for us to return back to God, there must be an eternal sacrifice, one that is the

Son of God, who was God himself, who would come down and redeem his people. Of course, anyone who's listened to the two -plus hours now realizes that we're coming from rather different perspectives on the atonement.

Yes, and they also must realize that I can turn the sound off on you any time. Okay. I think the gentleman did bring up a good point, and I think it's something that atheists have brought up against Christianity in saying that there's a lot of Bible atrocities and mass murdering going on by Bible prophets.

And, you know, you talked about blood atonement earlier. Jim, how would you address the atheist issue, which would basically answer the

Mormon issue, too? Well, of course, the atheists bring these things up, and they say that the

Bible is full of atrocities, and of course, the Old Testament does record great violence.

When the Israelites were in the land of Canaan, they were told to wipe the people out. And they were, of course, given specific reasons as to why that was.

And again, I think the problem that people have with the scriptures teaching about God's sovereign acts in human history is that we don't mind having a

God who, to coin a phrase of a Mormon friend of mine, is a theomorphic man. We don't mind having a

God who is in his workshop creating worlds or is giving to us gifts and things like that.

But let the natural man hear about a sovereign God who says, this is my will and this will be done, and I'm going to accomplish my purpose, man notwithstanding.

And humankind starts chomping at the bits and yelling and screaming and raging and all the rest of this type of thing.

As far as blood atonement goes, like I said to Van and everyone earlier, there is a massive difference between Moses wiping out the

Canaanites, or capital punishment as punishment for grievous crimes, and the idea of blood atonement that includes within it, and this is of course where we ended up having to close the conversation, that includes within it the idea of atonement or remittance of sin.

And there is a big difference there. Let me get the caller back on the other line and see if he has a closing comment. You're back on the air with us.

Yeah, I have to reject that analysis because pagan sacrifices, whether they're of human or animal or of their crops, were exactly to propitiate or to get back in good with their

God. I think that the purposes were for the same thing. Let me move on to make one last point, and then

I guess you can respond to me after I hang up. There are influences in society which are morally corrupting.

There's a famous line about how corruption occurs in a human being, that how you go from first coming to be repelled or repulsed by something, to eventually corrupting yourself to the point where you're attracted by the same thing.

Are you referring to first you see it and then you...

Then you tolerate it. ...tolerate it and then you adopt it? Right, yeah, that kind of a thing.

And as far as morally corrupting influences, there are things that I think most people would say are abhorrent and are evil, and those would include, as has been mentioned here, genocide, murdering entire cultures.

Human sacrifice is something that is usually considered abhorrent in everything except a religious context.

When Hitler does it, we are horrified. If God does it, we justify it. When the Aztecs do it, we are horrified.

If it is part of Christianity, we embrace it. And on that basis, I would submit that as a morally corrupting force, few things can equal

Christian doctrine. For making people tolerate things that, in a secular sense, in their everyday lives, they would consider to be absolutely vicious and immoral.

Well, and I would take a step into that in the context that Christians did not offer up Christ, did not sacrifice him.

Well, God did it. Well, God allowed it to happen. God planned it to happen. He planned it to happen,

I would say that. Sure. Well, I don't see how you can get out of the argument by saying God's followers are blameless.

God is to blame for this crime. Why would you want to get God's followers out from doing this thing and then put

God under condemnation for it? Well, I'm certainly not placing God under condemnation for anything.

Well, was it wrong to kill Jesus Christ in the sacrifice? No, actually, it was the only means whereby death could be overcome.

Well, then I don't see it matters who did it if it wasn't wrong. Well, it was wrong for the

Jews to have done it, yes. Well, why would God trap them into that? Well, I think we're getting into some real theologically, how was it that Linus said it, the theological implications of this are astounding.

It's something that can be addressed in the few minutes that we have left. The moral implications are astounding because here we have, you're justifying murder by God when you say, of course, if a

Pharisee does it, it's wrong, but if God does it, it's okay. I would expect God to hold up a higher standard of moral rectitude than a

Pharisee. Well, and I believe that he does. In fact, Jesus himself said that no one takes his life away from him, but that he has power over life and he offers his life freely.

And that when you really get down to the point, the Jews did not kill

Christ as much as he allowed his life to be taken and he gave up his life for us.

That's true. Then why is Judas under such heavy condemnation when he was, in fact, essential to the plan of salvation?

Well, I don't think Judas was essential to the plan of salvation other than... Well, when he was doing the will and the bidding of God.

I missed your comment. I'm sorry. Well, Judas was a, you might say, a patsy.

He was set up, he was entrapped into doing this thing by the Lord himself. I think that's really open to conjecture, really.

Let me turn it over to Jim and see what he has to say. Here's the question. If Judas had been a righteous man and had refused to betray

Christ, refused to give up a man to be murdered, we would all go to hell forever. Why is it that one man's virtue would have damned us?

Not necessarily. I think that's jumping to conclusions, personally. Oh, as the story goes.

As the story goes. Certainly, if he hadn't have been betrayed, I'm not sure that he would have had to have a betrayer.

But, of course, I may be disagreeing with Jim. Let me get Jim's comment on that.

I appreciate your call. Okay. Goodbye. Jim? Well, I think that the caller has brought the discussion into an area where, personally,

I think that, for example, a recent book that I sent to you would be rather relevant.

And that is the idea, I think, that the main problem that the caller has is that he would not accept the idea of a sovereign

God who can do with his creation what is right and just. Again, he misunderstood what the atonement was, the idea of propitiation.

He seemed to have the idea of, it's God who's angry at man, and Jesus is sort of getting the two of them together.

God was behind the entire thing. God was the motivator. He was the mover. It was an act of love on his part that was holy and completely of grace.

But I think that the main area, and, of course, I know that I get a lot of criticism for this, but the main area where misunderstanding occurs is that there is no sovereign

God who is in charge, who is just and righteous in the man's theology. And, I'll be a real nasty dude and say,

I don't think that there's a truly sovereign God in Mormon theology as well. Okay, and that's obviously your opinion, because I believe that God is absolutely sovereign.

He does exactly as he sees is just. But, of course, he has absolutely no power or ability to do anything unless man agrees with it.

No, certainly not. That's... I'm surprised at that comment. I think I could force the logic irrelevant to the idea that man...

For example, a little pamphlet, One of the Mormons, a fairly new one being published and distributed.

Very clearly within there, it says there is no predestination in Mormon theology. And yet, you yourself said that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was predetermined by God.

Well, predetermined, predestined, big difference. It's the same thing. So, I don't see a consistency there at all.

The thing is, I think you would have to take the author of that pamphlet to...

I doubt that the author of the pamphlet implied anything about the sacrifice of Christ, which would occur, was not predestined.

I mean, that was... Mormon scripture says that was an event from the...

that Christ was slain from the foundations of the earth. That was something that did have to happen, and that God knew would happen.

And God's foreknowledge saw it happening. In fact, the book of Ether speaks of... in the book of Mormon, where Jesus says that he...

the brother of Jared is brought back into his presence by his merits as the Savior. Well, we could talk a lot about what actually foreknowledge means.

I think we may be straying a little bit from what the man was saying. I have another caller, so let me put John Holt and get him in. We have about ten minutes left on this program.

Oh, yeah. Jim, let me... while you're listening, if I may be... if it'll be all right,

I'd like to just... you know... Jim, I think that the caller was...

sounded to me, according to some of the atheistic stuff that I've read, he had kind of an atheistic tone to his comments.

And, you know, of course, I don't know what his background is, but it seems like to me that he was presenting some things that is kind of along the same lines of things that I've seen in that ten -moment lecture that has been presented by your people.

And, of course, we do have another caller on the line, and unfortunately you're not able to comment on that as of yet.

But I just want to point out something that I find is interesting, is that if you take the same tactics that...

this is what I've found out... if you take the same tactics that critics of the Mormon Church use, these same tactics are basically the same things that the atheists are using against the

Christians, of which the anti -Mormons claim to be. Okay, we have a caller.

You're on KTZI. Hi, Alma, this is Art Bulla again. How are you? I wanted to take issue with a comment that Jim made about no more revelation after the

Bible. I imagine you would. Go ahead. Okay. I went to the State Fair here in Utah, and there was

John Smith there, had a booth, you know. You're familiar with him, I'm sure. And I told him

I was getting revelations, and he said, I don't want to talk to anybody that's getting revelations after Jesus Christ.

And so I said, well, you don't want to talk to Paul then, because he got his first revelation after Jesus Christ, and half of the

New Testament was written by a man who claimed revelation after Jesus Christ.

And so where do you draw the line? And, Art, I know this may sound strange that I would say this, but I think you've made a good point.

No, it doesn't sound strange at all. I think in some areas you're perfectly logical. Okay, let me get

Jim on there, and we thank you for your call. Sure. Bye. You back with us, Jim? Continuing revelation?

I'm having to wonder if I met this gentleman outside the temple once. I once met someone out there who was passing out revelations.

It may be him. He's the one that might have been strong. He's the one that was... Oh, okay.

All right. I think I'm putting two and two together. Does he type them up sometimes? Yeah. Ah, okay. And he also has a program here on KZDI.

Oh, very interesting station. At least as far as what he was saying. Again, what

I said, and I didn't go into depth on it, because we have discussed it somewhat before, at least

Alma and I have, was the idea of revelation, the idea of the content of the revelation and the direction of the revelation.

Nothing that art is getting is going to change or alter what the

Bible says. And if it does, then it's completely off the wall. What he gave me was...

I attempted to say something to him about Luke 16. The Law and the Prophets were until John, but since then the king of God has preached.

And I don't think our conversation lasted very long for some strange reason. I find myself, Jim, here kind of in a difficult situation.

I don't want to defend art's concepts. Yeah, you sort of do. I'm a fan, too. Well, again,

I would say that when you examine any revelation, art or Joseph Smith or anyone else, and you examine it against the revelation of God in the

Bible, in the person of Jesus Christ, that you would find that there are chasms between the presentation of, for example, the nature of God made in the

DNC and the nature of God made in the Bible. And most of the time people bridge those chasms.

Jim, you've got to be careful to say the nature of God as I see it in the Bible, because I see the nature of God in the

Bible precisely as it was given by Joseph Smith. But, Alma, you're wrong. All right, my finger's on the switch here.

Okay. Jim, let me just, you know, like I was saying before, the same arguments that you're bringing up is the same type of thing that atheists are bringing up against the

Bible. Well, I'm not. You've said that numerous times, Darrell, and, of course, you've said that outside the temple.

You've got your little sign that says that. In actuality, given the fact that I have a good deal of atheist material myself and have, of course, engaged them in public debate on talk shows just like we are doing right now, for example, the information that you will present to people like you have shown me is actually the same thing as what they are doing.

And I would say that the tactics and information and the same misunderstandings of the

Bible are demonstrated in what you say about the Bible, about the Apocrypha and things that you've said, as what the atheists bring up themselves.

And it's true. And, Alma, you know, you throw that switch and you're in trouble. But it's true that...

I'll get you on my program someday and throw the switch on you. It's true that I have found a large number of parallels, especially recently as I've been studying atheism more in depth, between the attacks made by atheists on the

Bible and attacks that I have experienced personally from various LDS people. So I think it's a...

I have to interrupt here. I'm sorry. But I think that you perceive Mormon conclusions on the

Bible as attacks on the Bible, when they're really not attacks on the Bible so much as they are attacks on your perception of what the

Bible is. No, I would... Of course, that's a nice way of putting it. But I think that what we're talking about is a very important subject, and that is the very nature of Scripture itself and the foundation that it provides for an understanding of theology and doctrine and the very

Christian life. And it never ceases to amaze me that every time, for example, in the

Ensign, you have an article just recently on the changes in the Book of Mormon. Every time, thrown in just for the fun of it, seemingly, is a little section.

Now, of course, we know that the Bible has this problem, that problem. It's, of course, completely off the topic, but it seems to be thrown in every single time.

Last year, there was an article about Daniel. And, you know, a little thing here, a little thing there, when

I attended the Gospel Doctrines class... And that's what I'm saying, Jim. I think you're perceiving that as an attack on the

Bible when it's really an attack on misconceptions about the Bible. Well, of course, you're saying that believing that the

Bible is the inerrant and fallible Word of God is a misconception. Okay, so we need to define what we're saying.

If you're just simply defining the Bible as a fallible revelation that has been corrupted over time and that is not completely trustworthy, then, yes, you're right if that's how you're defining

Bible. But if you're defining the Bible as the very revelation of God, then you've come out with a very different way of stating it.

So as long as people understand... I would say that the LDS concept is somewhere in between there, that, you know, you're dealing from absolutes where I don't think those absolutes are absolutely correct.

Well, the absolutes are absolutely there in God's absolute Word, the Bible. Okay, so I don't think the

Bible leaves any gray areas as to what its nature is. Well, and I think it does, and that's where our differences,

I think, begin. And I think that the differences, though, you will find... you'll have two camps relevant to that.

You'll have my camp and you'll have your camp, which includes you all and the atheists and the

Buddhists and Hindus and everybody else who says, yes, the Bible is a guide. It is a revelation, but it's not completely trustworthy.

And, you know, I've had so many people say to me, well, Mormonism is so different than anything else. And I go, well, let's look at some of the basic presuppositions we're coming from.

I mean, the Shirley MacLaine stuff recently. I didn't get a chance to watch the movie until just recently.

It was recorded so I could watch it. But here's a lady standing on the beach going, I am

God, I am God, I am God. Here's a trans channeler saying that man is co -creator with God. And when

I hear someone saying man is co -creator with God, I'm extremely reminded of D &C 9329, where man was in the beginning with God, where the king followed funeral discourse.

And I go, what's the difference? See, in Mormonism, as well as in the New Age. Well, I can tell you what the difference is right off the top.

What's that? We're right and they're wrong. But again, look at the presuppositions, Alvin.

That is that in Mormonism and in these others, the creature creation, excuse me, the creator creation distinction has not only been blurred, but has been completely done away with.

There is no difference as to actual being between man and God or man and angels within Mormon theology other than positionally.

And yet in Christian theology, God's being is completely and totally separate from that of his creation. That's right.

And I would say that it is equally demonstrable from the Bible that the

LDS position is true. We have about a minute left. If you want to take about 30 seconds, then I'll refute everything you've said in the next 30 seconds.

Well, I'm not going to bother to try to... Let me just... Excuse me? Jim, let me just kind of give a...

I guess a... What I want to say is... Invite everybody out to the conference. That's what

I want to say in a nutshell. Okay, Jim, would you like to say a few things? Sure. I'm not going to try to refute you or anything.

I'm just going to say that I appreciate the opportunity. I'm sorry I could not be there. I have to admit, being on the air has made me feel a whole lot better.

So I am feeling better. But would you mind if I gave an address where we could be contacted if someone wanted to...

No, go right ahead. Okay, they can contact us at Alpha and Omega Ministries. And that's post office box 47041

Phoenix, Arizona and the zip code is 85068. Or they can just come by the conference tomorrow and track down one of our volunteers.

The address is on the back of the track. Okay, Jim, if you'd hang on to the line for a minute, I'll talk to you afterwards.

We appreciate you coming on. Thank you for having me. I'd like to talk to you again. And I know

Van, I can extend this invitation from Van that he'd like to have you on his program again.