Wild Conversation with an LDS Street Apologist

Premortal Life, Divine Foreknowledge, and Moral Agency

Yeah, it's like my ability to choose good and wrong, or my ability to like do works of good or works of evil. Yeah, but we would define that as a moral pulpit, a little... Yeah, yeah. So, yeah, not having a premortal life, but pose a big problem with that.

How so? Well, if I was created from nothing, right? And in God's infinite core knowledge, I already knew what place he's going to put me in, or what decisions I'd make, given what circumstances.

That's a pretty standard Latter-day Saint view, though. No, it's not, actually. Most Latter-day Saints we've talked to believe in divine, definite foreknowledge.

I don't... I don't really give a shit what those Latter-day Saints have to say. But thank you. It doesn't matter to me.

Most of your leaders, though, have taught that God knows the definite future. I mean, when they've spoken on the issue...

Yeah, but you know the story of Osler and Maxwell. You told me it. You recounted it to me before.

Where Blake Osler corrects Neal and Maxwell on timelessness.

And you agree with them on this point?

I don't know how that... What the outcome was. Okay, he changes his book. But the dominant position of historic Latter-day Saint theology is that God knows the definite future.

Okay, that's the dominant position for just traditional Christianity in general. I would expect those Protestant presuppositions to be within Christendom in general. People haven't really given it much thought in Latter-day Saint dialogue.

But your leaders have taught that God knows the definite future. I think that the Bible teaches that.

That presupposing a problem, that's why I brought it up, with agency. And it also would contradict to a lot of the prophecies in the Bible, if that's true.

I don't think your leaders think that's true.

Okay, I was just appealing to your authority, right? My authority? Yeah. No, no, no, I'm... no. Because the Bible would disagree if that...

Oh, you're... the objective authority. The Bible teaches that... The Bible holds that God knows the definite future.

I would say some verses in the Bible indicate that. And then the Bible also shows that that's not the case.

The predominant Latter-day Saint interpretation of the Bible from the leadership...

What do you mean from the... So can you provide quotes from the leadership? Not offhand.

But I don't think it's easily... I don't think you'd be on good footing to argue that the dominant LDS position is that God doesn't know the future. So, do you want me to show you in the Bible?

But I don't want to interrupt too harshly. I can show you in the Bible, but you probably don't want to talk about it, right?

If you can show me something from the Bible that your leaders have interpreted a certain way, and you want to appeal to... So why are you giving me that criteria? Because I care at the apologist level, I care less about...

I'm not an apologist. Well, you're functioning as one, as a street apologist. No, I'm not doing that either.

Yes. I don't have that profession, I don't...

Not as a profession, but in sort of the Zachary Wright... I am not Zachary Wright's level.

Stephen Smoot... I'm not his level in the slightest. I am the Incrediboy of the Incredibles, in reference to that.

But I assume you want to promote the Latter-day Saint religion.

Yeah, because I mean... Yes, I would assume that all Latter-day Saints want to promote their own religion.

So, if you're functioning at some level as a Latter-day Saint apologist, even at an amateur street level... I'm an amateur, I'm not a professional apologist. But if you're doing that in any significant capacity, then it becomes less about interfaith dialogue with you as an individual, and I become more interested in how your positions align with your own church.

And so if you're giving something that's an...

I don't represent my church, I don't... You know, you don't represent your church, do you? Would you say that you do? Here's a quick way to put it. You can't speak for your church. No. But you can speak with your church.

What are you... I don't have a distinction. What are you talking about? You can't speak...

I'm speaking for me. But you can't speak authoritatively like your own leaders can, right? What are you talking about? I'm not an apostle. Right. So, you're not a leader, and you can't speak authoritatively for the whole church.

But you should be able to speak in unity with your church. What does that mean? Could you speak in unity with your church? Yes. God never was a sinner. Yeah. I don't believe that God was ever a sinner.

Well, I can speak with the unity of 100 of Christians on that. Of all historic Christians and all historic Christian churches. Okay. I don't believe that. You can't do that. Right. But you can't speak...

When historic Christians affirm...

Could you speak with 100 of surety that every Christian believes that the egg analogy of the Trinity doesn't actually... It shows modalism, right?

I think some people would use the egg analogy at a street level. I heard... What do you mean at a street level? What is that criteria? If you're at a seminary, if you're looking at historic Protestant confessions, if you're looking at the main proponents historically of the Nicene Creed...

So, are you saying...

Let me finish the thought. No, no, no. Are you saying that the informed Latter-day Saint would have a differing opinion than the general consensus of the street member?

On the issue of whether Heavenly Father was once perhaps a sinful mortal, there is no distinction between an academic Protestant and a non-informed Protestant. There is no uninformed Protestant who would affirm that Heavenly Father may have been a sinner.

I think we pulled out... So, we're talking about the... I was talking about the Trinity, right?

And so, that's a pretty big... Well, I was talking about theology of property. That's a pretty big thing to get wrong, right? Well, rewind. I started with. Whether Heavenly Father was a sinful mortal is even more obvious.

I started with, was the egg a good analogy to represent the Trinity? But rewind.

What we're talking about is speaking with the Church.

You're not being consistent with how you're using Church's authorities amongst different... I mean, my Church and your Church's. You're not holding... You're not being consistent. When I affirm a position...

I'll try to not... I'll try not to elongate this. When I affirm a position like Heavenly Father never was a sinful mortal, it's true. It's essentially true. It's beautiful and worthy of worship. Okay, that's a subjective claim.

Okay. Hold on. Let me finish it. It's true. It's essentially true.

It's beautiful and worthy of worship. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. And it's... No, no, no. No. Because you're gonna... You're so many presuppositions. Only four. Only four.

The fourth one is... And it's something that I'm not confessing merely in solo enterprise fashion. I'm confessing and affirming that with all other Christians. So, when a Latter-day Saint who follows the more Oslerian...

What is Oslerian? What does that mean? If you're... If you're...

Is that what you meant to say? If you're holding the views of something that approximates more of Blake Osler, you hold the position that Heavenly Father has always been God, for example. He never had to become God.

He's always been God.

Such Oslerians... I don't mean that to denigrate. It's not a diminutive, but it's just a label. So, you're just saying that, you know, the informed members of the Church and then the traditional, casual members of the Church?

When someone such as yourself affirms that Heavenly Father never was a sinner, it's often the case, please correct me, that even though affirming that, they would not say, it's essential for worshipping Him.

No, we wouldn't say that. Right. And it's not something you're affirming with your Church.

Yeah. So, where is... I guess, then, where does the Bible say it's essential to affirm that God is not a sinner?

In Revelation 4, verse 8, it says,.

Okay, so you're saying that even though I am a sinner, I can't be holy, right?

There's never... You can't become the kind of being who was always holy for all eternity. Okay, but that's not what that says.

Who was, and is, and is to come. So, you're just injecting your interpretation into Revelation and you're suggesting that it means that God was never a sinner, even though multiple times can Davidic kings be called holy and they were probably sinners as well.

So, I probably wouldn't use that interpretation because you're going to be conflicting yourself with what you think is a sole, infallible, consistent rule of faith, the Bible alone.

To be clear, do you think Heavenly Father is sinless in the same way that David is sinless?

No, I didn't. So, I was asking you why you're using the Bible that way. Unpack that.

Because I don't think that the purity of God...

The Most High God never sinned. He is the forerunner of the law.

But when I affirm the eternal sinless purity of God...

Yeah, you're using those verses, right?

Well, finish the thought. When I affirm the eternal sinless purity of God, I'm not affirming it in the same way that I would, for example, an angel that's never sinned. When I say that God never sinned, I'm saying that that's essentially who He is.

I'm affirming that...

We have no basis for that, though. Show me a Bible verse that teaches that. With all the other Christians... Your highest rule of faith doesn't teach that. That God never was a sinner? No, that it's essential to believe that in order to be a Christian.

It's essential for God to never have sinned to be God. And there are no Christians who believe God might have been a sinner.

That's true for David or any of the Davidic kings, right? And that's true for Samuel the prophet, right? That they never sinned? Yeah.

That David never sinned? Is that what you're suggesting? I don't follow you, sorry. I'm not trying to be crafty here. No, that's totally fine.

If the Davidic kings are called Elohim, and Samuel the prophet is called Elohim, then why should we assume that being God thus means that they can't sin?

What are you talking about? The Bible doesn't speak the same way about David as it does about God. There's only... It only says... Finish that thought real quick. It only says of God, Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty who was and is and is to come.

No one's described that way other than God. So when the Bible talks... When there's a psalm that was read to the Davidic kings calling them Elohim, right? What are you thinking of? Sorry. So when the Bible...

When the psalms... Which psalm are you thinking of?

I can find it for you. She's in... Just as a courtesy, we are mic'd up right now. Psalm 45, 67. That's fine. Yeah. Psalm 45, 67. Want to read it? Yeah, sure.

It's pretty low, just like different parts. Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. Thy scepter of thy kingdom is a right scepter. Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness. Therefore, God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

This was specifically the psalm written to the Davidic kings. That's what they call them. And so when the author of Hebrews uses it in reference to Jesus Christ and God the Father, that is exactly what you were just asking me about when is the Davidic king ever equated the same way as God is equated.

Right here in Psalms and right here in Hebrews.

So in the history, in the Christian tradition, reading that... Hold on. I would recommend not following the rhetorical patterns of Travis Anderson here. I don't know what you're talking about. I think I learned this from Travis Anderson.

Well, maybe the community that you're in has a style of rhetorical aggression that doesn't allow for complete thoughts.

I actually think you're... I would feel the same way about probably all of traditional Christian theology. I don't... That's just a subjective claim. I don't... Your opinion is...

Talking about the mode of speech and interfaith dialogue, I think we should... There's a little bit of a threshold of interruption where there's a kind of like excited back and forth, but we should allow each other to finish most thoughts.

Unless I'm going on and on and on. But in the Christian tradition, when we read such passages, the idea is that David is a type of Christ to come. That there are certain things said of David that are more true of Christ than they are of David.

That they are exemplified in Christ in the way that they're not exemplified in David. That they become... So you're saying that there's scriptures.

That talk about David the same way they talk about Christ, right?

Of Moses, Abraham, Joshua. So that contradicts what you were telling me before. Because you just said... Originally said the opposite. No, that the things that are true of these typological figures are pointing to something that's crystallized in the person of Jesus that is even more true of Jesus than it is of these sinful figures.

So when the prophets would recite these things in a coronation to the Davidic kings, essentially they're lying is what you're suggesting. No, I mean, for example,.

Thinking of Israel or Adam, there are certain things spoken of Old Testament figures or the nation of Israel that are really pointing through and beyond Israel and these figures to Christ. So when I say, for example, that someone's king, right?

Or father or shepherd in a Davidic king. I think you'll agree with me. There's a sense in which David is a shepherd. David is a king. David is kind of like a father.

That's not a good equation with the state of Israel because Israel is actually those things that the scriptures are telling it is. But you're telling me that David wasn't actually those things.

When the Psalms tell that David is. Well, Jesus is a shepherd. He is the shepherd in a way no other shepherd was. He is the king of kings in a way no other king was. He is the prophet, the priest, the king in a way that Israel wasn't, Adam wasn't, David wasn't, Joshua wasn't, even though all those Old Testament figures.

Prefigure Christ. Yeah, so if we were to say that Melchizedek was a king, we'd be, like, lying.

It's that he, as a person, as a real person, as a real king, that he himself is providentially designed by God to point to something bigger and better than beyond himself. In Hebrews 7, Melchizedek, the person and the story of Melchizedek functions to point to something beyond Melchizedek, which is more true, he is the king of peace.

How does that go in Hebrews 7 of Salem? I forget the exact wording. There are things said about Melchizedek that are even more exemplified in the person of Christ than they are in Melchizedek himself.

Okay, so then to equate Melchizedek with Jesus, that would be incorrect, right?

We wouldn't want to equate, but we would want to have analogy with. That's even the language of Hebrews 7. There's a resemblance.

Yeah, so then we shouldn't, like you were saying when you were telling me that if there's any scriptures that equate, that don't equate but point to Jesus by talking to David, right? Just calling them the same names,.

Calling them holy. Those titles are more properly owed to Christ than they are even to the original recipients that are not Christ. That they ultimately, the title shepherd and father and king and prophet and priest ultimately and properly belong to God and to the very person of Jesus Christ in a way that they don't belong to any other.

So, okay. So then when you asked me to show scriptures where the Bible is talking about David the same way it talks about Christ. I'm not sure if I asked you the same. Sorry. So when originally I was telling you that David is called Elohim and Samuel is called Elohim and you had asked me like, well, there's not really any scriptures that describe them the same way as they describe God.

And I just showed you that in Psalms. In an equivalent way, right. The same way with the same words probably. Do you take that to be equivalence? No, I think that Jesus Christ is equivalent to King David.

Is that what you're asking?

Like the use of the same term alone establishes some sort of equivalence.

So when Paul quotes from it or whoever he was quotes from it that means that he's using it. How it was not supposed to be used? I don't understand.

Please don't take this as a point of debate. I'm really just trying to help you understand how a lot of historic Christians have thought. I'm not trying to speak down to you when I say this. This is the kind of stuff that I didn't have a very good vocabulary for just years ago.

It's called typology. I still don't have a vocabulary. It's okay. I'm not trying to win the debate by pointing this out. It's called typology. It's that not just figures of speech but persons and events in redemptive history are designed by God to point beyond themselves to Christ.

So the classic example is that when Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew when you trace out the path of his life what it looks like is it's the path of Israel. He is the Son of God. Israel was called the Son of God.

Jesus is Son in the way Israel isn't. But Jesus exemplifies the way Israel ought to have been. Jesus in a sense is the true Israel. Jesus did what Adam ought to have done. Jesus is a second Adam. Jesus is a kind of a better replay of the events of the Old Testament and the people of the Old Testament showing that they crystal... like Jesus says something greater than the temple is here.

Something greater than... someone greater than Solomon is here. Solomon himself or the book of Proverbs for example when you... I'll end this with that. I'll hand it back off to you. When I read Proverbs to my children what I'm doing is priming them for the person of Jesus.

Jesus is wisdom incarnate. Jesus is the actual ultimate giver of wisdom. So when I learn Proverbs and when I teach it to my children that is priming them so that when they hear Jesus the ultimate wisdom teachers say the sermon on the mount their ears are attuned to where that ultimately comes from that is the very person of Jesus.

Yeah, that was the original understanding of all the scriptures that talk about Israel being the son of God. All the scriptures that talk about the Davidic King being Elohim. That's the same but consistent understanding that traditional followers of Jesus Christ have always kept to and held.

That the Old Testament points to the person of Jesus in and through the various events of people of the Old Testament. And the road to Emmaus.

So when the authors wrote these texts they had Jesus Christ in mind all the way and not the Davidic Kings.

Well, the term for it if you wanted to Google sort of the discussion around this. Yeah, you just said the term. I can do that. The term is theological interpretation. Or forgive my bad Latin. It's like census plural.

I forget the Latin term for it. The idea there's a full sense of scripture that the human author can't contain in his mind. But the idea is that the word of God that as these prophets are carried along by the Holy Spirit God himself is inspiring them with a divine intentionality and a meaning that is grounded in and rooted in and extending the human authorial intent.

But there's more in mind than the human author himself even can kind of wrap his head around. I'll give you a real clear example. Yeah, I follow you. Genesis 3 .15. I'm recording too. No, no, no. Yeah, you're totally fine.

Yeah, feel free. Yeah, yeah. In Genesis 3 .15 God when he's cursing the serpent evidently in the audience of Adam and Eve he gives a promise that someday the serpent would be crushed by the offspring.

Even though he would bruise the offspring. So when Moses is delivering this it's not necessarily that he has a crystal clear picture of who the offspring is. He kind of sees it from afar. So there's a sense in which God has a more clear picture of who the offspring is.

And when you get past the death and burial and resurrection of Jesus and the Holy Spirit is given to God's people they can kind of do a second pass a second reading a second round through Genesis. And when you get to Genesis 3 .15 you're like oh, the offspring is Jesus.

It's not necessarily that Moses had a crystal clear photorealism of who Jesus would be or who the offspring would be. He knew it analogically. He knew it meaningfully. But we now as post-cross, post-Pentecost spirit and devout Christians I can go back and read Genesis 3 .15 and know with ever more certainty.

That that's talking about Jesus. I appreciate 99 of what you said. I agree with it all the way. Your question was whether the Bible speaks of David the same way it speaks of Christ, right?

Not by equivalence, but by analogy. I know, but that was your question, right?

Because that was the criteria for what an Elohim is. That's what we were originally talking about. I think maybe my point was.

There's certain superlative, extreme categorically unique statements about God that are not made of David are not made of any other figure. So for example, holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty who was and is and is to come.

There's no other figure in the Bible spoken of like that. Nobody even comes close or even possibly close to that.

And so, back to what we were originally talking about you're saying that those verses teach that to be a Christian it's required that you believe that God was not a sinner. Is that? Well, I'm making the observation.

There has never been a Christian that has believed God may be sinned.

Per your criteria of Christian, sure. The historic Christian position that's unanimous. For the criteria of the Bible what is the criteria to be a Christian from the Bible?

To believe in the Lord Jesus Christ substantially and not merely superficially. Okay, so what does that mean? Substantially and not superficially? To repent and not be an idolater but to look to God as the most high God.

Okay, so what if I say a sinner who in the past thought that God was a sinner? Is that not what they're... Could they not fit under that criteria? That would be idolatry. It would not be the same God.

So then I asked you where in the Bible that that doctrine is contained, right? Revelation 4a. So it says like,.

It doesn't say that God was never a sinner. It says that he was holy, right? Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty who... And we're commanded to be holy in Leviticus.

Right. So we're even supposed to be that way. Can you see though the difference?

Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty who was and is and is to come. That's not true of you.

That never will be true of you. No, because of my Savior Jesus Christ it will be true of me. Probably not for you though because we have a different Jesus. Because you don't believe that you can actually become righteous or be holy like we're commanded to.

In the Old Testament. I'll never be able to say that I've always been holy. Yeah, I would agree with that. I'll be able to say amazing grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me. I'll never rightly and properly be able to say to others I've never been a wretch and I've never been forgiven and I've never received grace.

I would agree with that. The way the New Testament speaks of grace is that it disables me from being able to properly boast. I can't boast in myself, I can only boast in God. I agree with that. That's categorically different from God who can rightly boast in himself as never having received grace, as never having received forgiveness, as never having sinned, as being the most high, as only ever having been the giver and never receiving something he didn't already have.

There's things about God that are celebrated of him, you could say boasted of him, that I can never boast about myself. For example, that I've always been holy, I can never properly boast in myself of that.

Neither can you. So you're suggesting that those verses in the Bible mean that God was never a sinner. That's like what they mean. I thought you had agreed with that.

In some sense. That I agree with that does not mean that Latter-day Saints who have believed in the past are not Christians. I don't understand the criteria. Just to be clear. It's based on this, it's based on this Bible, I'll say that in the first place, but even from that viewpoint, I still don't see God was not a sinner in the Bible.

Maybe God is just blind in my eyes to not see that. Help me out, Dustin. Why do you believe God never was a sinner? I know that's the offspring position, but why? What's the, in short, what's the framework or reasons for believing God never was a sinner?

Unpack that for me for a little bit, please. The same way that God got a body, or that Jesus Christ got a body, is how God the Father got a body. And when Jesus Christ got a body, He never sinned. Okay.

Because He was God before He entered into, before He shed glory, before He emptied Himself and came into life. And that same way that Joseph Smith is talking about in the King Father discourse is what happens with God the Father.

Probably except that He didn't perform an atonement, but that He's not been eternally God from all eternity because that once He emptied His glory. Now... Because of the incarnation, you're saying? Because of the incarnation.

Now, I know Christians are going to say, well, Jesus Christ is still fully God in the flesh. Yeah. Right? I understand I can appreciate that point. Joseph Smith seems to not understand that point. It's explicitly why he's saying that God wasn't God from all eternity is because He shed all His glory and divineness.

The fact that, you know, a lot of times when patriarchs speak to Yahweh, the face shines. God emptied that glory from Himself when He became man. That was Joseph Smith's understanding. Can I restate your point?

Can you tell me if I understand your point? Your point, if I understand it, is that the King Philip Discourse isn't about how God came to be God, but rather it's about how God... It's not either. It's about...

How God came to have a body. It's about how... It's about finding solace in the fact that you'll live again. And He teaches this doctrine for those comforting saints who have just lost a member of their community.

But to understand you correctly, it's not that God became God through progression, in your view, I understand it. It's rather that God has always been God and then He descended, condescended to have a body, took a body, and then temporarily was not God through that interim period.

That's what Joseph Smith thought. I don't know if I would fully agree with, like, the theology behind that. I can still appreciate it, but that's probably what he meant, or he's contradicting himself in the next paragraph by saying that you suppose God has been God from all eternity, and then he says it is correct enough, but who told you that?

And he continues and riffs off that. And so, if we're going to be consistent with the amalgamating fallout discourse, we should probably pick the one that's most consistent and the interpretation that's most consistent with the rest of the sermon and not just read the, you imagine, suppose that God has been God from all eternity, I'll refute that idea and say go ahead and veil so you may see.

You should probably read it consistently with the rest of the sermon. So, that's the reading I choose. If I understand you correctly, in a sense, he was God from God, he was God from all eternity until this event where he took a body and emptied his glory.

And so, and he wasn't fully divine in that sense. And then, it was again later after his ascension. Okay, so, if I understand you, just zooming back out and rewinding, if I understand you correctly, Heavenly Father never was a sinner because he followed that pattern and in that pattern, he was always God and never a sinner either prior to incarnation or at incarnation.

If God is the orbiter to the law, I know the Latter-day Saint interpretation of the book of Mormon where the law precedes God, I know you talked about that with me before. If God is the orbiter of the law, in his nature, is that to...

I'm sorry, orbiter? If he is the... Originator maybe? No, no, no. Author? Yeah, author is the same thing. I just forgot my sponsor name that word. If God is the author of the law, anything God does is that is the law.

That is the standard because he is the most high. He is more intelligent than they are. Like the DNC in the book of Abraham said, he sits among the council of gods being the most high, being at the head of the council of all the other gods.

So he wouldn't be a sinner in that capacity? That's the logic? If he is the author of the law, how could he sin? Okay. So, and to supplement that point.

Just so I understand you correctly, the verses in the Bible that speak of him having been holy, holy, holy, who was and is and is to come, those... Hold on, hold on. Hold on, hold on. You have your own as well.

Let me ask a question. You have the Bible alone. I'm just asking you. A verse like Revelation 4, 8 as previously quoted, if I understand you correctly, that does not suffice to establish that God never sinned.

Is that fair?

I'm just trying to understand your point. It doesn't matter if it's under mine or your theology. That verse does not suffice to say that God was never a sinner, period. Under any sort of theology on the book of Revelation alone.

I don't... Do you think that the Bible is sufficient to make a case that Heavenly Father never was a sinful mortal? That was my whole point. No. That's why I was asking you about that. Okay, so... That's why I asked you why it was a criteria for someone to be a true Christian they have to believe that God was never a sinner.

Yeah, that's built in to the very definition of... I mean the Father, the person of the Father. Of all three persons of the Trinity. So the Trinity is not in the Bible? So again, we can... Like, that's not what I'm asking.

I'm asking about specifically God the Father. We can formulate the Trinity if you want to, but it's not... The two... You can call them creeds. Hero, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. And then sort of the creed or the confession Jesus is Lord.

To say that God is one... So what does God is one mean? To say that God is one...

What does that mean? To say that God is one... I don't want to build off your false presupposition. I want to understand what God is one. You're learning from Travis Anderson here. No, I'm not. I learned it from the NRSV Oxford Study Bible.

That's where I learned it from. I'm talking about a mode of communication. No, I want you to let me take a little bit of the case and hand it back off to you. You build your own case. You're building off this presupposition that is false.

If we start wrong, we're going to end wrong. Let's talk about our presuppositions and our differences in this monologue you're about to give me. Take my presuppositions and my conclusions... So what does God is one mean?

Take my presuppositions and my conclusions in a package and then critique it. No, I'm not doing that. Well, then that's just bad conversational lack of patience. I mean, whether or not what you believe is bad conversational patience is really irrelevant.

Kind of jumping on people without letting them finish their thoughts is a kind of rhetorical domineering aggression that I don't think represents the typical Latter-day Saint on the street here. Yeah, so when people start telling me that, you know, oh, I'm arrogant.

I am arrogant. I know. When people start going at me how I'm going about this conversation, it shows me that they're losing the conversation. I know. Let's talk about what God is one means. I'm okay losing, but I want this to be substantial and patient and diligent.

I don't want it to be a kind of a... And I want it to be diligent, too. And so when you hand me this package wrapped pre-formulated doctor-to-be so I can critique it, that's such a waste of time. No, let's take the ingredients out of that and talk about each one because we're just going to sit here.

We have two different packages. And so let's talk about what God is one means because you're going to.