Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
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 passing out literature and speaking with folks and talk about it.
We do not do anything like obstruct the gates or do any yelling or screaming. We aren't into that kind of thing, that's fine. We're not going to do anything unusual or anything like that. If you want to talk to LDS folks, you've got to go to where they are.
A question that people are always asking, and I'm sure you've had this asked many times, 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 ever placed. We will, for example, the Invention of Jehovah's Witnesses. Twice a year you have the opportunity of talking to a large number of LDS people.
The Alpha and Omega Ministries, if I'm the director and subject or want anything against someone who does, I think, though, that I have seen quite often there's a danger in that. It becomes about that one group.
I think my main area of study has been just basically nationally known atheists. So in the past subject, we deal with some sort of balance in how you look at issues to have a number of viewpoints in your mind and be awake and how to be in a light that is negative to norm.
We've tried to do that with one of those 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 in October.
It's so unusual. That sounds like it actually went out much better than tracks that have. I have not heard a whole lot of the subjects as I would never bother to try. And at the same time, I think I'm fair in saying something like that for what it says, but not for what it doesn't say because there's no way to be able to.
Actually, we've actually got all are looking at the.
Difficulty, whatever. And there are some who do, but I have no difficulty with somebody expressing a point of view, saying this is, 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 I know.
We'll just turn the sound off on you, Jim. 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 with Mormonism.
Our tract on the subject represents, and it's unusual, in fact, some Mormons' objection to our presentation of Mormon doctrine. Normally the Mormons very easily or non-validate. They're generally available to 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.
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 fact.
Well, let me make a paragraph from the Confessions of John D. Lee, Relo Barland, and from that book, a concave statement, and I think Reformation, that is the main point of the argument, and of course that kind of activity is not out of line with what Brigham Young himself was saying.
And his sermons on that subject like that, if only it gives rise, that kind of point again, though, was this is not Christian for anything, because 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. I think this whole area, to me, coming from Documentary History 211, my viewpoint is...
That's an interesting point of view, but let me just comment on a couple of things that you have said. 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 of 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. He never has yet been brought into such a position. I mean, there's this 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 that 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 as divine laws by the Mormon hierarchy, and not just Brigham Young, I mean, I made reference to Joseph Steeling Smith's Doctrine of Salvation, Volume 1, pages 130 with that.
If the Mormon Church were, these laws would be reinstituted. And I would assume the same thing would happen with quitting and being scriptural without any interference. The whole point, again, is not did Brigham Young go out and put a javelin through somebody that Brigham Young could sell to the King of God.
But that is not Christian doctrine. And there's not one shred of evidence for it. Not only that, but it's the complete lies of Jesus Christ. The point is not, well, Brigham Young was a nicer guy than that, and he said he was glad he did it.
If something like that occurred, and they had their blood shed, if that shed blood because it's known 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 said, 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 fact that either existed or was said 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, to Brigham Young's atonement, Adam-God, plural marriages, it's very easy to see that this kind of doctrine brought about this kind of activity.
And for one instance, not even one thing from which leading the incident. And it's only in response to what McConkie said, and the main point of the tract is, no, blood atonement is not biblical.
And that's the whole... You know, that might be the whole point of it in your mind, but I think it is a significant thing that people, you know, 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 saying, I'm not coming on here and complaining about that and saying that, you know, this is a problem that I have with Van Hale.
You know, we could, you know, incidents and things are accurate history, and obviously I don't 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 are many other books, and of course, again, the Church, that's wonderful, but it lies on both sides. And it was in response to Bruce Albuquerque saying, there's not the slightest inference, no.
And when you look back, it's really strange. You've got the Mount Meadows Massacre occurring. I mean, it's 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.
There's a very simple reason that in the state you all live in, Southern Utah, people do tend to disappear.
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 Q. Cannon, 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 the vilifying and blackening of 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 he 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 is very manifesto, and the cessation of polygamy, living in polygamy, and we know that even in the Mexico deal and the whole nine yards at that point, the point again is, yeah, sure, that's going to be said, but when one reads, for example, and I know that the quote from one of those nasty people, negligent in marking the exact reference other than the eternal discourse, says, I can refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously chosen hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance, and taken and their blood spilled on the ground by the smoking incense of 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. 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.
And I would take that, and 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, have atonement, including the shedding of blood, human blood, for the atonement of sin, we'll go on to say, this is loving our neighbor as ourselves, we need salvation, and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth, in order that he may be saved.
Still, understand the principle of acquiring the shedding of blood, excise, fide, and arrest, until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that exaltation in time. A point that I've been trying to make, and it's not that it is a law of God, that is due to plenty of instances where this has occurred.
Now, obviously, I would assume that the law of capital punishment has anything to do with it. The idea that man's blood can atone for his sin is completely unbiblical, and that's the point we're trying to bring out.
The massive deficiency in the doctrine of the atonement of Christ, as represented by Mormon doctrine, not only relevant to the idea that sacrifices are going to be reinstituted, in the role of the priest, together, I think, very clearly, that's not biblical.
That is unbiblical. The blood of Jesus Christ, alone, can shed atonement for anything. Anything like, 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 argument, 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. You have to realize that you must make sacrifices, and the Old Testament system was a shadow of things to come, for that sacrifice cannot take away.
The fact that God applied to them the merits of Christ, God does the one ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Even within the Old Testament, blood can atone for his sin. The covering of the sin was never presented.
The New Testament, does the New Testament present, and you and I have spoken about this before, Van, and I don't think that...
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, 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. You have 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, 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.
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... The Old Testament presents the idea, the idea that God very clearly said that the evil people in the land, and the land was polluted, and...
All right, so 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, may commit certain grievous sins according to his light and knowledge that will place him beyond the reach of the eternal blood of Christ, rather than beyond his own life, than he says on page 135.
Basically the same thing. Now, since we're talking about power and being beyond the power, you know, I would agree with you that I'm not trying to say that Mormonism says that you're pointing out, and I think it's very clear from Mormon...
...grievous sins that you can carry inference of, the blood is not powerful enough to atone for those. And even Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, I think it's 454, said,. It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins of the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit.
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, on certain sins, cannot atone for. If a person's blood can atone for those sins, you are saying, in effect, that that man's sinful blood has a wider application than the very blood of Jesus Christ.
You see, that's the interpretation that you would like to place upon that, but of course you have no church leader who is suggesting that. 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 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 the sacrifice of animals? That's how I understood it, yeah. Okay, you must have misunderstood me wrong.
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.
For an animal reminder of sin, 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 why I disagree with you. And then I would say from that point that those who reject prod 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. They were talking about atonement, atonement by their own blood.
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. 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 28, I think you missed the point of what he's saying there.
The author of Hebrews is saying there, in Hebrews, he's not talking about the sacrifices, that if you know that Christ has made sacrifices for sins and attempt to go back to your old ways, attempt to go back to the coming up here or Deuteronomy where no longer sacrifices for sins, you cannot say, well, hey, I offered the right sacrifices.
No way. There is no one sacrifice that made by Jesus Christ. And that again brings me back to what I said just a second ago. And that is the whole idea of what is the atonement cleanses from any sins at all.
And I think if we understand, you know, Jesus' sinlessness, the fact that he was the perfect sacrifice, the Old Testament's teaching that the sacrifice must be completely non-blemished, it must be perfect as 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 Feeling 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, and Suzanne and Alma at the same time.
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 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 a, 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 chapter 10, verse 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.
Let me summarize what I was saying, too. And that is that, first of all, in reference to the unpardonable sin, that the passage of Matthew makes it very clear there is no forgiveness for that whatsoever.
Atonement or no atonement. I would just simply wrap up by what Sir Brigham Young himself said. An offering upon an altar 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, but the track makes and the point that we're making relative to blood of the atonement of Jesus, it is not limited in its scope.
It cannot be anything. It is secondary. To add anything to the compulsion is exactly how I see, for example, the entire doctrine of priesthood within Mormonism.
Well, it's going off in a different direction. I have certain things in mind that I would like to address myself to and have you address yourself to. And I think that 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.
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, 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 seeing him being inaccurate, I just again repeat what I'd always said. And it's interesting that he says, it's almost interesting, these offenses are committed that the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins, even though they repent.
Therefore, their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone as a scriptural doctrine and is taught in all the standard works of the Church. And again, one must simply look at the materials themselves and say, you know, what does McConkie himself did say?
And it's the same point I made just a couple minutes ago. In other words, something needs forgiveness of these certain grievous sins, and that's the hope 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 because of that.
Paul did not nullify the law. He did not make it. It is not the idea of faith, the idea that there can be any continued extra second sacrifice of Christ in any individual's life. You may be able to find support for it.
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 are 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 have got to take the atonement of Christ and then add something to it.
What they are talking about is a penalty. What they are 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 are 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, we could sit here and talk for hours just reading passages in the scriptures that present that very idea.
Oh man, you keep saying I'm carefully twisting all the references I've read. That shedding of blood, 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 passages that says atone and remit.
They spoke in the English language. I know what those two were again as we have done, as I have had to do. 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 power of the atonement, 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? What was the message that they were trying to put across to the saints?
That would depend on the particular one. 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. The Reformation, again, it's 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 think it's very clear that we're sacrificing just the very term we use, blood atonement.
Atonement, remission of sins, is another word he used. Reach 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 in which they were given. And that context, of course, was this 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. It was not, 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 whole of the church.
And all the rest of the stuff, the statements were made, is the idea that there can be anything at the same time that those certain sins can be atoned for by the blood of the man. Look at them yourself.
That's exactly what they said. And I don't know, it's really seen. And I think it's just part of...
Okay, with that, obviously you think that I'm misunderstanding this. I think I have cited enough information from, I think, to demonstrate my point. You think you've demonstrated your point. And I think I have, too.
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.
Why don't, 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.
Here on KZZI. Yes, Van, in that document that you have been reading from, does it, at any place, state that it's atoning for his sin? Okay. Ask that just one more time. Okay. At the beginning of that document from Bruce Almaconkey, where he was stating the position, is there anywhere, because I wasn't quite sure.
I didn't hear it. It wasn't repeated enough for me to hear. In that, where he said that the person is atoning for his own sin and the phrase that is used. Well, I suppose that that could be inferred from, 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.
You know, there is another statement in here, if I can 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 to show that he is willing, that he is genuinely sorry. For example, I said I was sorry and repented and refused to give the money back so it was in my power.
Values. Well, there is, you know, 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, 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. I believe that Brigham Young, perhaps, or the others, I wish I could talk to him directly and I can. If he had been, if he had gotten himself out there into the studio it would have been a lot better.
Well, he was, 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 his,.
Taxed him to some extent. I do appreciate his being around. Well, that's too bad. I hope he gets well. But let me say this and finally, though, I think it is the Nolan situation when you both said and then when they themselves yes, but he's lying.
Because if he's lying maybe he was lying in the first place. Okay, well, I appreciate your call and... Well, I'm enjoying the discussion. It's been a little frustrating. I wish, and I hope next time he is as 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. Okay, I'm going to go back to Jim White now and for some comment on his part and, but also so 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. Jim? Okay, thank you, Ben. 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...
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 get back to you. Hang on. You're on KZDI? Yes, I understand Van left and there's somebody on with him taking a call. My name is Alma. Alma? Uh-huh. 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.
So it must have been you. I don't think there's an Alma LeBaron, is there? They're probably 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 3rd 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. Okay. Outside the temple and I guess the only thing that I could add to at least my comment was something she said about resurrection.
And judgment by work. And of course Revelation chapter 20 is a very common verse that I've had many LDS missionaries has been judged in Jesus Christ on the cross of Calvary. John 5 24 Jesus says come into judgment but it's and I've tried to express that.
Well, you did my best. You want to go on anywhere else or. Well, you had mentioned there's one thing I'd like to point out you 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 in plural marriage.
I think that's a little addition on your part. They never never denied that anyone was living in polygamous relations. No. I think what I was referring to there Elmo was the idea that the official position of the church after the manifesto was this is not sanctioned by the church.
There seems to be evidence that even the early church beyond that time for years beyond that time sanctioned plural marriages. For example in Mexico and in places like that of the church leadership was that does not necessarily mean that it wasn't going on because we've seen in other times when when those things were going on and there was a strong obviously as you know a very strong it sold out.
You know that's where you have a lot of the origins of the polygamist fundamentalist movement. Jim I don't think.
I don't think you can really legitimately say that there was a real strong movement that 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 a quite a while to think about it and then and then decide that he had sold out. Well I ask because most of them were irrelevant. The point was my statement was that the official statement and yet the practice was going on amazing blood atonement and yet if it was kind of 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 fundamentalists in Utah and northern Arizona and Idaho and places like that demonstrates this and obviously if someone feels that blood atonement 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 people not even hear him say that but you know if they reject what McConkie says about that and say Adelaide 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 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 are not members of the main body of the church who has. At the same time the point I was making was David said Joseph Smith and the others were engaging in polygamy in Smith's actual life saying that the law of the church is one man one wife.
Well again you have a discrepant one wife. Of course that section has been removed. We know now anyways that situations were evolving and that in the 1981 court in 1843 there was evidence and so again sometimes an official statement is an official practice.
Okay and Jim I would say that the historical background of that quote unquote official statement.
Would rely what you are saying. Oliver Cowdery wrote that and inserted it while Joseph Smith was out. Joseph Smith did not have the did not give approval for that to be inserted in the Doctrine and Covenants.
I think that is 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 is predominantly irrelevant to the modern Mormon but there is a section for example from Joseph Smith himself and this is admitted by Mormon scholars. I have heard that it is said that and I think that could be demonstrated very clearly.
Again the point was okay. Van read the section and found a ground upon which to assert that 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 are 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 would 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 till next. 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 judgment should we put upon Abraham who as Josephus puts it was 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.
Josephus lived many thousands of years after Abraham so how he would know that is a tradition and the very same sources that you would get the Kabbalah and other things that a Jewish missed. What type of judgment would we put upon I mean if Josephus works is an authentic work I mean predominantly I mean if we're going to be considering writings and different historical facts as facts what type of judgment would we put on him?
Another point what type of judgment would we put on Christ when he taught pointing in the scriptures that if anybody offend a little one it would be better that a millstone be hanged around his neck and 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.
You have a big notebook with photocopies and stuff in it?
I have yes I have a lot of. Alright. 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 you know if we're supposed to take people's statements literal why shouldn't we take Christ's statement literal that of you know a little bit more about 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 the way Jesus would 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 have been 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.
I'm confused obviously you're not Alma you must know that person. To what he said concerning baptism and regeneration at that point at least in some ways I appreciate my saying that from the tone of voice that I could hear anything else.
Or to make it efficacious. Or even to make it efficacious I'm not sure what he was referring to. 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 but I don't know we've been up here for quite some time and about the number of people I know outside the temple gates is Mrs. B and you. I think he's easily recognizable as the one mighty and strong.
Okay well I think we have another call let's see if we can get that other caller on. Hang on a second. You're on KZZI.
Yeah 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 native 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 will give you the reference where it's referred to the name. Alma is referred to as a masculine name.
Okay. Aspired version.
Away from this or the plagues relation that he took away from the book of Mormon. 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 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 you know the Bible as we have it did not come as a compilation of the whole Bible.
As I believe the Greek word for it is a 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. Okay. And I'm sure you're familiar with Apocryphos and there's other books that some of your early eighteenth century Bibles contained.
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 would be 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. And in Mormon theology though isn't Jehovah our Elohim. Well I think what you'd have to do is.
Look at the application the church has made beginning about 1914. I think the first presidency said from this point on we will refer to as 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 in any injunction I would think. Okay one last thing I think the thing Joseph Smith talks about Elias visiting him referring to the what's mentioned in the New Testament notice the other words Elijah and yet Elias is merely the Greek form of the Hebrew Elijah.
Maybe you can come in and 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. Okay. I would like to hear your comment on Joseph Smith seeing Elias and Elijah. Well Joseph Smith yeah it's pretty tricky. I think it's it's pretty clear that Joseph Smith did understand that Elijah was Elijah and that Elias was also the 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 where the Savior comments on it after the after the Transfiguration around the Transfiguration where where the apostles asked Jesus how then say the scribes that Elias must first come.
Right. And Jesus's answer was Elijah or Elias shall come and restore all things but he has come already. I don't know 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 Elijah has already been among them and that they did 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 it says you shall not add unto the words Lord thy God shall give thee.
It was not saying that there will not be any more further revelation after this but I've had Deuteronomy 4 .2 revelation past Deuteronomy. Now a human edition came up. And that's what I would agree with you.
I would say yes it prohibits human edition as does revelation but you know that most scholars believe that 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 apocrypha, the apocrypha was canonical 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. Oh, but I think they did. I think they did. For example, the canon of the Old Testament was not relevant to really canonization so much as other issues. And you'll find that Jesus and the apostles never in the Scriptures were had an argument about what was and what was not Scripture.
That's what I'm saying. I don't think that ever came up. 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.
Van and I have talked about this numerous times and he's brought up the apocrypha and I guess Daryl, is that the name? Yeah. Daryl brought it up too and yet I've never met a Mormon who thought the apocrypha was I think it's about a year ago this April or it might have been last October.
No, I think it was about a year ago showed me a photocopy of the Revised Standard Blinds that 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, why we have the...
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 but... I'm trying to read it, I know. Oh man, you can almost read it upside down. Makes a lot of sense. Anyhow, I understand those areas and where the Bible is coming from and it's on both pages.
I think that's a good point saying that well, Deuteronomy 6, 4, the Shema, or Deuteronomy 4, 35 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 me over and over and over again. I see the 8th 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, 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 in Greek and Hebrew.
I have no problem with this. 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 would like to bring up too, I think that if we were to agree that if the Bible is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and he was 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. It's the exact same thing. It's on an end of an argument that the.
Bible as well as the context of Hebrew is the same. The problem that I see is that I don't see any revelation declaring the end of Revelation. Well, I don't see any. 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 I'm not sure if you understand interpretive method, but the point that I would bring up is that there's a revelation that would come after this, would have to reveal something about this, and then that track salvation.
When you look at.
The Mormon planet,. But Jim, I think you're choosing there to ignore the passages of the New Testament that speak of priesthoods and the fact that it seems clear to me that, 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, that 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, is that the Bible is as inspired, or as Hebrews, as behind the writing of Hebrews. As well as, were they inspired to write the book of Mormon?
Excuse me? Exactly. 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 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, so you're not going to take and interpret him as an example.
I've been debating a rather nationally known atheist in his own publication called Biblical Herency of Late, and he basically said in Matthew, Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not murder. To him, it's the exact same Greek phrase the whole nine yards, that every month is.
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 scriptures in that way, obviously you're going to make them a mishmash, and I have nothing against obedience, but you're going to balance that against the teachings, for example, of the relation of exactly how the gospel works, I mean, the clerics, and you're not going to interpret them as.
Quotations if you don't. 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 you, you know, that passage in Hebrews is very, very important to you, obviously, because it keeps arriving in my mailbox all the time, but I understand that.
Well, 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 has been at the back of my mind that I've wanted to do, and I plan on doing so, in that you come to Phoenix.
And that's it, but I will be taping it, and.
Of course, you'll be on my list of not-the-Mormon ideas. I do not think that Mormon theology takes anything as a picked up by Romans, and it's 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 to him, 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 they 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 angels," and goes on to list all these different works, "...and if I am 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, is, you know, that we should be motivated by love in doing good works. It's not something we have to do, it's something that we want to do because we love God.
Darryl, would you mind reminding some of those BYU linebackers that are going to be standing very close to me tomorrow, that, could you stand next to each one of those while we're there? Jim? Yes. And I also think, you know, 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 preached unto you the gospel, wherein you are saved, if you keep in remembrance the things that I've taught.
Oh, I agree. You know, I think 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, but 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. This is Bruce Harmaconkey 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 and 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.
7. any Mormon anywhere if they earn exaltation without Christ?
I will not say without Christ. I would not say that. I understand that 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 I keep trying to bring up.
If you add all 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.
Now, remember, don't go translating that into some other language now. Pardon?
Now, don't go translating that into some other language now. It's written in English.
There's another, we only have about 30 seconds left, but there's another thing that you might want to consider, Jim, is, you know, if you are saved by, if you're saying we are saved by works, you know, 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 want to come by and say hello.
Where we were, I, 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. Right. 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, uh-huh. 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 where 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 the LDS doctrines. He is an ordained Baptist minister. Okay. An expert on the cults. And I'm a born-again Mormon, not 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.
Right. 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 virgins, young virgin girls who symbolized the 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 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 a guest on the program and I'd like to see how he answers it. Is that okay with you? Sure. Alright, 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, appease God, is used in the New Testament sense in which the wrath of God was wrath against sin, not wrath against...
And so I would say that the major difference is that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is presented in all of his 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 work 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.
Well, 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 of religion.
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 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. Alright. You there?
Yes, you're getting real good at this. Okay. I would say, first of all, he 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 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 central element. It was not the idea of life.
It was not the idea of atonement, the Hebrew term meant. 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 reconception, the family of God.
These type of ideas are absent from these, quote-unquote, pagan sacrifices. 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.
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...
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 came and 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 who's a theopoet, we don't mind having a God who will 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 man notwithstanding.
And humankind starts chomping at the bits 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 a little punishment 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. Okay.
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... were exactly to propitiate or to get back in good with their gods.
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. Influences in society which are morally corrupting. There's a famous line about how corruption occurs in a human being, 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. But 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 as a 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 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 if he had been there sometimes.
Well, when he was doing the will and the bidding of God. I missed your comment, I'm sorry. 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. All right. We appreciate your call, okay? Okay, goodbye.
Jim? Well, I think that, sir, has brought the discussion into an area where, and that is the idea, I think 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 the idea behind the main area, and we're misunderstanding a sovereign God, just and righteous, in the man's theology, and I'll be a real man covering 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...
No, certainly not. That's... I'm surprised at that comment.
I think I could force the logic irrelevant to the idea that man, one of the Mormons, a fairly new one, being a nation in Mormon theology, and yet you yourself said it 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 that was an event from the... that he was... 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 10 minutes left on this call. Jim, let me... while you're listening, if I may be all right, I'd like to just, you know... Jim, I think that the caller was sounding 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 10 Mormon 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 KDDI.
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. Yes. 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...
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 happen 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 who might have been strong. He's the one that was...
Oh, okay. All right. I think I'm putting two and two together. Do they type them up sometimes? Yeah.
Ah, okay. And he also has a program here on KZZI, so...
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, seen once, the law and the prophets were until John, but since then the king of God has preached, and I don't think our conversation lasts 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, I'm offended. Well, again, I would say that when you examine any revelation, art or Joseph Smith or anyone else, you find that the chasms of God made the deity of the Bible, and most of the time people breach 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. Jim, let me just, 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.
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, 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 same misunderstandings of the Bible are demonstrated in what you say about the Bible. And it's true, and Alma, you know, you still have a switch and you're in trouble, but it's true that I'll get you on my program someday and throw a 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.
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 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, a 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 is, of course, completely off the topic, but it seems to be thrown in every single time. But 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 foul word of God is a misconception. Okay, so we need to define what we're saying. If we're defining the Bible as a... 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... then you come out with a very...
Well, 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 there are 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, Hindus, and everybody else who says, yes, the Bible is a guide.
It is a revelation, but it's not all... It's not completely trustworthy. And I've, 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 staying on the beach going, I am God, I am God, I am God.
Here's a trans channel with God. And when I hear someone saying, man, it's co-created with God, I'm extremely reminded of D &C 9329. Man was in the beginning with God. Or the King Follett funeral discourse.
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 creator-creation distinction has not only been blurred, but has been completely done away with. As to actual being between man and God, or 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. Jim, let me just kind of give a... I guess a... What I want to say is... I want everybody out to 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. Sure. 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. Sure, sounds good. And next time, come healthy. Okay, I'll do that. Okay, thanks for being on the air.
I will.