November 18, 2004

The Dividing Line Opens With a Report From Phoenix

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

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

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

Technical Banter and a Quick Update on Presidential Mail

Welcome to the dividing line. It is Thursday afternoon the 18th of November. And we've got that hum again, don't we? Yes, we do. Oh, it just disappeared but That Mm-hmm. That's me doing that. I don't like home get rid of my home.

Okay, it should be gone now. Ah, that's much better. At least it's now there's still a little something. It must be turn off your backup lights it must be alien alien Message remember that you know in signs where the you know, the kid got up on top of the roof with the thing.

That's what that is. Anyway. Hey. All right, we are back and It's funny I had completely forgotten that there was something else I wanted to do on the dividing line last week or last on Tuesday and We didn't do it then.

Oh by the way before I forget it. Just today for those of you who have been everybody keeps asking and asking and asking. Yes, just today summer received a letter from the White House signed by President Bush about stem cell research.

And so it did get through and and she got her response. There was. There's nothing out Unusual about the response just explained his position on it which is pretty much what had been said in the debates and so on and so forth and Thanked her for her thoughtfulness and so on so forth.

So I just wanted to mention that in in passing should I forget it? And Of course, she'll have her. We'll probably frame that or do whatever you do with presidential letters last time. We were together.

Ravi Zacharias at the Salt Lake Tabernacle and the Evangelical Response

I mentioned the Developments in Salt Lake City and certainly it is a development to see a picture in the Deseret morning news. Evangelical preaches at Salt Lake Tabernacle, and there's Ravi Zacharias preaching.

From the pulpit of the Tabernacle, of course, that's not where they have general conference anymore, which I found to be interesting. I I bet you they almost could have filled up the the meeting house across the street but he is described as a Christian philosopher.

Ravi Zacharias dubbed the evening historic at the Tabernacle and Last time we were together. I was going to provide you with some of the Birds eye or personal witness views. From some folks that were actually at the Tabernacle during the course of the presentation and As I have been looking I still have not yet received the email.

The Voice. I haven't been able to listen. I would like to be able to listen. I would assume someone is going to make the audio available at some point in time. But have not yet found anything there whatsoever.

And I want to read what a Christian Said concerning what was said there in regards to Ravi Zacharias. He said he began with a strong affirmation of the depravity of man. He said not many smiles in the faces of the LDS authorities seated just a few feet behind him.

I would imagine not when we've passed out tracks on the depravity of man. That has always been one of the least favorite subjects that we've ever Abroached with the with the Mormon people he continued with the masterful job of presenting the person of Christ and his work on the cross.

He repeatedly emphasized the sovereignty of God. He made one passing mention of the Trinity. No visible response I could detect from the Mormon authorities seated behind into the right of the pulpit all in all Was a powerful biblical presentation of the gospel.

So that's what I would like to hear someone at some point said that there was a reference. Now here a little later on one of the speakers from the evangelical side. Unfortunately, I can't now recall which one made reference to Jesus work on our behalf both in the garden and on the cross a thinly Veiled attempt to give credibility to the Mormon teaching concerning the role of Jesus sweating blood in The garden and the role that allegedly played in our redemption since that's been Specifically.

Oh, you can order it from here. Well, there's Get a DVD you have to get hold of the DVD we'll have to track that one down and put that on the on the list of things to get but Anyway, I I was it was very interesting to note That this person who was there had to differentiate very strongly between the presentation made by Ravi Zacharias and those made by Greg Johnson and Richard Mao now initially my correspondent Differentiated between Mao the president of fuller seminary and someone from Mao who was who from fuller who was speaking but all of the Things that I've read have put the words in Mao's mouth that this other person said so they evidently it was actually Richard Richard Mao that actually addressed these particular issues and It is he and Johnson's words that have caused the most difficulty for anyone who has been following this particular situation.

He said Evangelicals who spoke before him and after him were a major disappointment to me. They seemed to bend over backwards to give credibility to Mormonism. Greg Johnson made the incredible comment that both Christians and Mormons were guilty of embracing doctrines and beliefs without regard their truthfulness, but simply in order to take a position opposite to that of the other camp if Mormons say they believe the Sun rises in the West and evangelical Christians take a position rise Sunrise in East.

He said that's not what Johnson that's not Johnson specific analogy. But the idea was that he was in essence saying that so we have taken these positions and I found that fascinating. First of all, I that's just not true.

Why Accommodation to Mormonism Is Not Biblical Apologetics

I mean here is an excellent example. If if mr. Johnson who lives up there in in the Utah area. This is an excellent example of being too close to the issue because the fact the matter is the theology that that I present and I believe and the Presentations I make to Mormons Was believed well, I used the 1689 London Confession.

There were no Mormons in 1689. Okay. I mean, how can the positions of the 1689 have been determined by Mormonism? I mean, that's just silly. Now there may be people that you know, maybe he's just talking about.

People that I likewise have criticized for their their Really bad Presentations to Mormons how many times for how many years? Have I said over and over and over again? I would much rather have five people with me in Salt Lake City Who knew what they believed and who had to give a positive presentation of the gospel?

Then 50 people who could rip and shred Joseph Smith, but could not make any positive presentation. I've said that over and over and over and over again and so for someone to stand up there and Talk as if they represent Evangelicals look if Greg Johnson used to do that then Greg Johnson needs to apologize for Greg Johnson.

But mr Johnson do not apologize for me when I didn't do it and I've never done it and don't give the impression To the Mormon people that I would accept you Apologizing for me when I haven't done that in point of fact, we have worked so hard to avoid doing that very kind of thing.

I how does a person? Stand up in front of people and claim to represent Others in that in that way that I can I even begin to understand so Excuse me, mr. Johnson, but Apologize for yourself do not apologize for me.

I have a long history of ministry up there in Salt Lake City at the general conference and in debates. And I have not done what you have now implicitly both accused and convicted me of doing Before the Mormon people in the tabernacle, what a what an amazing thing that is.

That is one of the issues I have with this sort of ecumenical movement up in Utah is it seems? To Lump everyone together and yeah, there's there's Bad stuff on on Mormonism out there. I mean if you want to go after some of the stuff Ed Decker's done or Dave hunts done Fine go after that stuff, but don't Say that the rest of us do the same thing.

That's just dishonest. It's inaccurate and dishonest and then it says. And again this this writer did not believe this was Mal the president of fuller but The professor for theological seminary said was the most egregiously inappropriate speaker.

He abjectly apologized the Mormon community for the disgraceful way evangelicals have demonized Mormonism. We have misrepresented their doctrines of beliefs because we haven't taken the time to inquire about them.

We have falsely accused them of aberrant teachings. I really didn't mean this professor to apologize on my behalf to Mormons for finding error in their theology. Well, I agree completely, of course. Fuller theological seminary from which I am a graduate with a master of arts degree in theology 1989 Was far to my left at the time that I did my studies there and has simply gone much farther out that direction ever since then and Certainly, I don't know how Richard Mao became an alleged expert on Mormonism.

But I've never seen him doing the things that we've done and felt like either be that as it may. That's when he then mentions here the idea of the garden and the cross. And so that kind of thing just drives me nuts.

Drives me nuts. So when someone would would make a statement like that that is specifically meant to try to earn some points with people who are following a false God and a false Christ and a false gospel and you want them to know the truth and You want to speak the truth to them?

You don't do that by compromising or by twisting your own beliefs. That just doesn't doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Now a lot of folks will. This really touches upon how people view the the whole process of apologetics, what do I mean by that well There are a lot of folks and especially postmodernists Who look at this and go?

Wow, this is great. This is great. This is wonderful. What a wonderful thing is going on here that we have the opportunity of Bringing evangelicals and Mormons together. Standing together isn't that the the name of the ministry that Greg Johnson hasn't standing together.

Well, what are we standing on a lot of folks are saying well, you know if we could just it looks like there's some BYU Professors and you know what? They're a little bit. They certainly take a better view of grace than Bruce R. McConkie did isn't that great and Then we.

Wouldn't it be good if you know, you've got Clark Pinnock Presenting open theism up there on BYU radio. Wouldn't it be better? To get the Mormons to maybe we can make him get him one little step so we move from God being exalted man lives another planet and billions of billions of gods and spirit children and intelligences and Maybe we can get him to try theism.

With open theistic concepts and then maybe in a couple generations we can move them to a something closer to Monotheism and can start introducing some I you know, maybe get a few Mormons to believe God knows the future.

Perfectly and you know, we might never get there because you know what we can't get rid of Clark Pinnock. He's an evangelical anyway, so that doesn't really matter. So but maybe over a number of generations.

See we can move Mormonism a little bit closer to the truth see a Roman Catholic and channel just said Mormons are so small a sect why spend so much time on these people. That's Sort of funny it's sad, but it's it's sort of funny.

I mean 12 million people's a lot of folks and maybe this particular person doesn't live around a lot of Mormons, but those who do. Obviously you want to be able to share with them and and You know we we share with all false religions small ones or large ones like Rome and.

So we'll just continue doing so. So anyway. Isn't isn't that a good way of doing it? Isn't it good to just sort of move them along a little bit? Honestly, a lot of folks might say yeah, that sounds pretty good.

But the problem is I Don't see that in the New Testament, I don't see that in the New Testament at all. When Paul wrote to the Galatians he could say to the very first generation of The church at Galatia that they had worshipped those which were by nature not gods there's I don't find anywhere where he addresses the church of The Galatians where You are still worshiping those which are by nature not gods.

But at least the gods you're worshiping now or not as bad as the gods you worship before. I Don't see that. I Don't see you've embraced a little bit better gospel than the false gospel used to have but it's still a false gospel.

And so we're gonna try to work on your kids to get you a better gospel what happens is the call to abandon falsehood and Embrace truth is muted when people stand together and hold hands and say, you know what?

We've really been mean to one another and of course, it's always in this wonderfully nebulous way. Let's get specific. Could we be specific? Maybe could I ask if Richard Mao or Greg Johnson are gonna stand before the Mormon people and accuse me of Misrepresenting the Mormons that I'm gonna demand the same thing of them that I demand of a Mormon that would say that Document your allegation.

Otherwise retract it. Oh He's a president for something. I don't care. I Don't care at all. I've never seen him outside the gates of the Mormon Temple. I Never seen him witnessing the Mormon missionaries.

You know, the ivory tower is a nice place, but it doesn't doesn't really translate into the sidewalk in Salt Lake City so You know when when this kind of stuff's going on that the call to the radical break of From idolatry that Mormonism is and see that's where the problem is.

See people are thinking You you reform Baptists you are so backwards you we can't use terms like idolatry anymore. That's that's not gonna communicate to people anymore and you know what all of that comes back to a distrust of the Holy Spirit of God, that's what it comes back to a distrust the Holy Spirit of God.

You see this is why theology is important. If you don't have the right theology If you don't believe that it's the work of the Spirit of God in the hearts of the elect that brings them to salvation. Then you're gonna you can't trust the Holy Spirit of God to accomplish these things.

Yeah, and I was thinking about the exact same thing I was just pointed out Mao's written a book author of Calvinism. Las Vegas Airport. Well, I'm sorry but This kind of approach is not consistent with Calvinism.

It's not consistent with the call to cease idolatry. You cannot say well, you know, could I give you maybe possibly a little different way of looking at God? I'm not not saying that you are really necessarily completely wrong.

No, that's not what Paul said. He said you worship those which by nature were not God's the folks Mormonism believes that Elohim The God of this planet was once a man who lived on a planet like you and I.

His first begotten spirit child after he was exalted the status of a God is Jehovah who's Jesus. One of his other spirit children is Lucifer. Who's Satan you and I are both his spirit children by multiple wives and.

So you have God is an exalted man from another planet. Jesus Christ is his first begotten spirit child and he's our spirit brother as well. The Holy Spirit's another one of his begotten Children and so How can you say well, you know, could we maybe amend that a little bit?

No that this we're talking about the difference here between monotheism the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob and the Bales. That's really all we're dealing with here. It's just as clear and Where in the New Testament where the Bible do we get the idea of That the way to evangelize someone in that kind of a false religion is To try to get them to move just a little bit closer maybe each generation.

See, this is this is very much, you know, it's it's a very modern concept it appeals to folks who really has a a Problem If appeals to folks who really have a problem with the idea that you know, God's truth is the truth and We can't edit it and we can't alter it and he calls us to bow before it and accept it Completely and totally and we don't have a say in it.

That's what people don't like. That's that's where all these these Books are coming from that are trying to present a Christianity that has no core. It has no message. It has no this is true. And that is not true.

We got to get rid of all that stuff people seem to think why because from their perspective Conversion is a function of the sinner rather than the function of the Holy Spirit applying the gospel to the elect.

So there's the whole point. There's where theology And having the right theology a biblical theology a God-centered of theology, which quite honestly is just simply reform Soteriology, that's what the Bible teaches.

Here is where it ends up touching and determining determining how you do apologetics. Now we haven't stood outside the temple and passed out tracks for quite some time and We haven't done that as we've explained before because of the King James only radicals Who have simply destroyed any Opportunity whatsoever for speaking the gospel in any kind of Context that is it all respectful that is it all you you you simply can't communicate anything out there.

It just can't be done. These people are so hate-filled. They're they're so ignorant of Mormonism. So ignorant of the Bible that their behavior is so completely Irreprehensible that that it's just nothing but a complete context of hatred.

It's it's horrid. It's just horrible. So we haven't been there we've heard it's been getting worse and worse each time around and That's that's a complete shame and we have addressed this many times before and we've done programs on it and we've we've done the right thing in condemning these people and and asking that people do whatever they can to Pull these people's support and to put pressure upon the churches that support them and all the rest that kind of stuff we've done what we could do and So we haven't had the opportunity of being out there to speak to people for quite some time, but we did for 18 years On a consistent basis for 18 years I can guarantee you if We in point of fact Were to go up there and do it again We would hear over and over and over again About This kind of stuff about Welsh, you know, you've just you've just got your viewpoint but there are other evangelicals and they they're much nicer than you and and they they think that we should discuss our theology together and and You know, they're not out here just saying that we're wrong Etc, etc.

They they're nice we'd hear about it. It would be used as a means of Blunting the proclamation of the gospel I guarantee it now, obviously we are not The only people who are up there There are people who live up there who are involved in ministry up there on a regular basis and Many of them are not happy whatsoever With what is going on?

Because the fact that the the clear proclamation of the gospel and a call to the LDS people to repent of their idolatry and to embrace the truth about who God is is Being made much more difficult By those people who seek to do this little bit of One step at a time one step at a time one step at a time that kind of situation.

What's gonna happen the future? I don't know. I don't know this fascination with open theism. I would love to hear Pinnock's presentation open theism, though. Of course open theism is Not even close to being biblical Christianity in the first place and and so That would only further I mean honestly in Utah anymore now you have to be prepared to deal with open theism so as to Really answer the sharper LDS apologists they are going to make the same kind of argumentation That so many other people do and they're going to utilize what look at your amongst your own folks.

You've got the you don't how can you tell me? I need to believe in a God who knows the future when Clark Pinnock or John Sanders or Gregory Boyd does not need to You know believe in these things and they're still a part of the evangelical theological.

You're inconsistent and you know See what you just simply continues to add all of these further hurdles that must be gotten over to to deal with these things and so What will the future bring? I don't know there was some discussion.

I Believe toward the end of one of the articles here. Yeah, oh this was interesting. I forgot about this Best-selling Christian musician Michael card provided music for the service performing piano and vocal music and Asking the audience to join in the chorus of several numbers now that must have been interesting.

That That must have been interesting because the Mormons were probably sitting there going um We don't we thank the Oh God for mr. Cart, you know, we thank the Oh God for a prophet. No, probably don't have that one name.

So One pastor who concluded the service said several times He didn't want the meeting to end Noting he was excited to have met in the tabernacle and suggesting the meeting become an annual event then with a big smile He added don't you all have a bigger place right across the street?

Well, they they do have a bigger place right across the street it's much much much bigger and Who knows maybe maybe something like that will take place that I don't know. I Don't know. So there's what's going on up in Salt Lake City, and it is Odd it is very odd next really quickly Tony Campolo speaking my mind the radical evangelical prophet tackles the tough issues Christians are afraid to face.

I I Don't know what Once I got rid of the all the politics and there was a lot of politics In in this book, and if you'd like to know what a liberal Democrat radical Evangelical prophet sounds like well, then, you know, here you go Skipping the political sections of the book which were fairly large.

There was all sorts of stuff in here That just I don't know. Stuff about sexism and homosexuality the homosexuality stuff comes directly from his wife actually. The Chapter on on Islam was Horrible. Oh, I want to send that chapter to Sam Shimon and well, then again I mean, I want to because Sam would his blood pressure would boil over the section on egalitarianism was.

Well, the whole book Just simply throws out these arguments. It shows it throws out these these brief citations and quotations and Gives absolutely no context and no thought to the other side of those arguments.

For example, I do need to find this. I apologize, but I need to find this thing here. Did he? How does the rush do this? He goes do you do you do you do you do you do? Ah, here it is. Hey, I was pretty quick.

What do you mean from his wife? She wrote it. No, his wife is the source of his views on that subject. I discussed this a little bit during one of the theology talks on the cruise and lo and behold Steve camp who knows him was there and Piped up and gave us some background that you wouldn't otherwise know actually so it's it's interesting page 39.

Oh. By the way, give him some credit. He immediately Disavowed any connection with the subtitle of his book. But those mean nasty editors did it which I was glad to find out because the radical evangelical prophet I anyone who would call themselves that it's probably a little bit goofy anyways, and so I'm glad he did not.

He did not call himself that page 39. This is in a chapter where he is directly stating. In fact, let me let me give you the context here. Is Evangelicalism sexist. I got a big-time trouble when I declared it to the 2003 gathering of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship a split-off From the Southern Baptist Convention that those who prevented women from being ordained to the preaching ministry were perpetrating an evil practice.

They were heated words and some of my friends and relatives thought they were ill-advised looking back. I wish I could have found better ways to express what I felt because I I know that many basically good Christians disagree with Me about this.

It may have been that anger got the best of me. But behind my words poorly chosen as they might have been were some valid concerns deep convictions and strong feelings. Just not a whole lot of biblical argumentation.

That's my commentary. A host of negative reactions were forthcoming from leaders of Southern Baptist Convention a denomination that a few years earlier Had concluded a long established practice of ordaining women.

Not only did the Southern Baptist end the preaching and teaching ministries of many women who had been occupying Baptist pulpits and holding faculty Positions in our theological seminaries, but they extended their opposition to women preachers overseas the very day I made my strong statements against those who would keep women from the preaching ministry.

I had met with some missionaries from Japan who were beside themselves because women clergy who have been faithfully pastoring churches in Japan were now being Defrocked so to speak a good bit of the passion for what I said stemmed from my reactions to what the Southern Baptist were doing to these missionaries and so.

The man is driven by his emotions. He is a it's it's feelings and Here's these wonderful people and since I feel they should be doing what they're doing. Then you've got the emotional thing. And so that's sort of the the you know, there's even a subtitle on page 38 born of personal experience.

Well, he does try to Give some argumentation page 39 under the deeper damage. Denying women the right to preach affects more than just those who are gifted and called to do so ie Assuming that God gifts and calls this denial sends a message to all women.

Especially young girls who are trying to figure out who they are that they are inferior to men. Oh. Those Christian leaders who say otherwise will make their case by saying that just because women have different callings from those of men.

They're not inferior. But I argue that when they tell women they are barred from the high calling of God to preach because they are women. These leaders have made a sexist statement and drowns out any theological tap-dancing that may they may do on this reality.

Then he starts arguing for this and notice this is what really caught me right here. How would you respond to this if you if you heard somebody saying this? How would you respond to this? It is not as though no women held key roles of leadership in the history of the church now I stopped just for saying where have you heard that recently?

Where have you heard that recently? The Da Vinci Code. Yes, that's Part and parcel of that and that means there's a lot of folks who accept that pure fiction that fantasy and Hence look at this and go.

Oh, that's that's full. That's the yeah, I bet Jeff. It's right in all right continue on. It is not as though no women held key roles of leadership in the history of the church. In the church at Philippi We find that Yodius and Syntyche filled significant leadership roles in Romans 16 7 we read how Paul sends greetings to junia a woman to whom he refers as a fellow apostle.

It should be noted that some recent translations which have a male bias Have changed the name of junia to junius. To me it looks as if they wanted to conceal the truth that one of those who held the highest office in the early church Was a woman.

Now folks that is Da Vinci Code level conspiratorial propaganda. But it's being printed by the W publishing group, which is formally word okay, and So here you have these individuals. Specifically Tony Campolo.

Throwing out as a Baptist an argument that is absolutely parallel directly To that Da Vinci Code. That Bible translators are biased and they want to hide things just like the male leaders of the church want to hide That Mary Magdalene was the Holy Grail and So they changed everything.

See so. What about Romans 16 7? Is it the. Is it the. I mean the numeric status is greet andronicus and junius there's junius and and here's the here's the argument. That you know this is a male bias translation greet andronicus and junius my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners who are standing among the Apostles and Also were in Christ before me.

Now let's just look at some English versions here the ASV. Salute andronicus and junius my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners who are of note among the Apostles. Now think about that for a second of note among the Apostles.

Does that mean that they are being considered as Apostles or that among? The Apostles they have been recognized. The ESV greet andronicus and junia. My kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the Apostles and they were in Christ before me.

Now notice there you have junia but they are not andronicus and junia are not being identified in the ESV as Apostles. But they are well known to the Apostles. King James salute andronicus and junia my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners were of note among the Apostles.

Same concept is it. Does that mean that they were known or that they were Apostles? I looked at new Americans there at NIV greed andronicus and junius must be that male bias again my relatives. Who have been in prison with me?

They are outstanding among the Apostles and they were in Christ before I was NIV seems to identify them as Apostles. New King James Uses junia and who are of note among the Apostles. New revised standard junia.

They are prominent among the Apostles. Again does that mean that they are well known amongst the Apostles or that they are in the In the actual group themselves. There's just some of the English translations that are available now.

If you read just this paragraph, there's no further all you have here. Is this throwing out this idea male bias hiding things that really helps people to trust their Bible translation? Doesn't it? No, it doesn't.

I find Campolo's comment here absolutely positively. Not only without merit, but it's irresponsible. It's simply irresponsible. Why? Well. Another a number of reasons. Let's first of all Romans 16 7 is not a text upon which you want to base.

This kind of argumentation. Why? Well, here are a number of reasons. Number of reasons. Number one, there's a textual variant. There's a textual variant between. Regarding that the name itself. So you have two different readings, okay.

Even if you accept the union reading. Then you have to just discover and you have to decide how to accent the word. The original manuscripts don't have accent marks. And if you accent in one way, it's a male name if you accent another way.

It's female name and that is the decision of the editor now people say well, then you look at the early church fathers. But you know the early church fathers don't know one way or the other. They're not infallible sources.

And so you've got a variant and then you don't know how to accent it so immediately. The idea is not a bunch of male biased Bible translators. Campolo probably doesn't even know or if he does know he doesn't care.

That in reality you there are issues at this point in looking at the text but beyond that. Beyond all the issues. Let's say you you decide on Union and you decide that it's Unia the female. Still as we saw in the translations that we read there is a little word At Pismo I Splendid outstanding and twice apostolos.

What does that mean? Does that mean? Outstanding amongst the Apostles as being in the apostolic band or does that mean well known amongst the Apostles? How you translate that makes a huge difference and it's like Campolo does not even mention the reality.

That there's a lot of discussion of this now if you're interested there is a Article by Dan Wallace in The Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, I think is the proper title. It's on my laptop over here.

And if I go over to my laptop, I you no longer hear me more. See, I'm I can't even get over to my laptop laptop because I'm tethered to this earphone thing. Anyway There's a long article by Dan Wallace and a co-author on this very issue and The very fact that this material exists the very fact that it is out there Demonstrates that there's the idea of making this kind of irresponsible accusation against Bible translators is.

Well folks, I'll be I'll show my bias here. That's what the left's all about. That's what makes it so much easier to be a liberal. Politically and theologically you don't have to worry about truth. You don't have to worry about you know, when I think of these things.

And that's one of the reasons that let's be perfectly honest with you. My Mormonism books aren't in print anymore. You know one of the reasons why they're not. Because when I present what Mormons believe I know how they defend it.

I know what their best presentations are and so I'm trying to respond to the best Presentations not the lowest common denominator not the The worst presentation and so I have to cover a lot more ground.

I have to get more involved. It can't be as Exciting and conspiratorial and all the rest that stuff and so people don't find it to be as quote-unquote good. It's more truthful. It's more useful. But it's not as good see and so Here we've got the same type of situation here it sounds so much better it Communicates so much better to just simply throw that stuff out there.

But it's not truthful. It does not show honor to the biblical text itself and It's simply irresponsible simply irresponsible. It was the section on on Islam was irresponsible the section egalitarianism was irresponsible the section on Homosexuality was irresponsible.

The whole book is irresponsible, but I think we will see more and more and more and more of it in the future. Then Then we will anything else so anyway Yes, I would like to get my books back in print every time you know when I visited the LDS temple in Long Long Island, Manhattan, man, I just it just made me so Sad to realize that the only reformed responses to Mormonism Weren't in print anymore.

I mean thoroughly reformed. I mean I suppose there's one I can think of but anyway I'd love to see that happen, but exactly how is a good question I've thought about combining letters to a Mormon elder and is the more of my brother into one book.

It's there's a lot more work that goes into that than might might meet the eye and and anyways, it's definitely a thought that I've had and want to continue pursuing in the future, but anyhow, so I I Don't remember.

How in the world did I hear about this book? I maybe was in channel. Maybe a caller mentioned it. I don't know but I've ordered another book that's all important and stuff like that and That's getting a lot of play and every once in a while.

I want to try to review these books and and let you know that they are there and Yeah, we do still have stock. That's right. Thank you am in just remind we do still have some copies of letters to a Mormon elder and is more of my brother, but not many and It's a It's a it's a shame that that's that's the case, but that's just sort of how things go anyhow.