Wild Conversation with an LDS Street Apologist

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 pre -moral life, but what was the 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, even 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 core knowledge.

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.

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, I don't know how that, what the outcome was, but... 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.

I don't, I don't, 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. I'm, I'm, that presupposing a problem, that's why I brought it up.

Yeah. 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, we're, we're, I was just appealing to your authority, right?

My authority? Yeah. No, no, no, I'm, no. Because the Bible would disagree with that.

Oh, oh, you're, the objective authority. The Bible, 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, can you, so can you provide quotes from the leadership? Not offhand. Okay. But I don't think that's, it's easily,

I don't, 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, so do you want me to show you in the Bible? I don't want to interrupt too, too harshly. I can show you, I can show you in the

Bible, but you probably don't want to talk about it. Um, 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, it's not. What do you, I don't, I don't have that profession. Not as a profession, but in sort of the

Zachary, right? I am not exactly like Steven Smoot.

I'm not on the slightest. I am just a boy of the Incredibles. Okay. But I assume you want to promote the

Latter -day Saint religion. Yeah, because I mean, yes, I would say, 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 more, I become more interested in how your positions align with your own church. And so if you're giving something that's an idios -

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't speak with your church. What do you, what do 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 is, 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. But you can't, you can't do that. Right. But you can't speak, when, when historic

Christians affirm - Could you speak with 100 % of surety that every, 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, 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 members?

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 sin. I think we pulled out, so we're talking, we're talking about the,

I was talking about the Trinity, right? And so that's a pretty big - 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 or churches.

You're not, 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.

Okay, 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, 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. You're just saying that, you know, the informed members of the Church and then the, you know, 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 worshiping

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

Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty who was and is and is to come. 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 from all eternity.

So you're just injecting... Who was and is and is to come. 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. I'm affirming that... 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? I don't... What is it? What are you talking about? The Bible doesn't speak the same way about David as it does about God.

No, it's... 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 where you want to be.

Just as a courtesy, we are mic'd up right now. Psalm 45, 67. Is this fine? Yeah. That's fine.

Psalm 45, 67. Want to read it? Yeah, sure. Thy throne,

O God, is forever and ever. Thy scepter of thy kingdom is aright. Is aright 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, okay? 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 up. I'm feeling the tradition.

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 up there. The mode of speech and interfaith dialogue,

I think we should, there's a little bit of a threshold of interaction, 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.

Okay, 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's sort of the contradiction you were telling me before, that that's, because you just said, originally it 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.

Yeah, so when the prophets would read 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 a 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 that 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 it 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. He's, there's a resemblance. Yeah, so then we shouldn't, like you were saying when you're telling me that if there's any scriptures that equate, that don't equate but point to Jesus by talking to David, right?

I was 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, that 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 I, 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, you know, 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 point 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 putting 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, hand it back it 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, the 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.

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. Of course, 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. So yeah, you're totally fine.

Yeah, feel free. 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, right? 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 -indwelled

Christians, I can go back and read Genesis 3 .15 and know with ever more certainty that that's talking about Jesus.

Yeah, yeah. I appreciate like 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. 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.

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, like 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, not superficially. To repent and not be an idolater, but to look to God as the most high

God. 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, would not be the same God. So then I asked you where in the Bible that that doctrine is contained, right?

Revelation 4, 8. 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 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. That's not true. 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 of 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 be clear. It's based on this. It's based on this

Bible that's stated 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, right? 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 at once He emptied

His glory. 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 and can appreciate that point. Joseph Smith seems to not understand that point.

That'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 from Himself when He became man. Or that was Joseph Smith's understanding. Can I restate your point?

Can you tell me if I understand your point? Sure. 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 came... It's not either. It's about... 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 the theology behind that.

I could 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 amalgamated

St. Follett discourse, we should probably pick the one that's most consistent, the interpretation that's most consistent with the rest of the sermon and not just read that you have imagined and supposed that God has been all...

God from all eternity. I'll refute that idea and say, go to the veil so you may see. You should probably read it consistently with the rest of the sermon.

So that's the reading I choose. So 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. Emptied his glory.

And so... And he wasn't fully divine in that sense. And then it was again later after his ascension.

When he resurrected himself. Okay, so if I understand you, just zooming back out or 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. I know the letter to say, interpretations of the

Book of Mormon where the law precedes God. I know you've 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 consonant in 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 say. 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. And 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, hold on. The Catholic discourse, you have your own as well. Let me ask a question. 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?

No, that was my whole point, no. Okay. 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 into the very definition of... I mean the Father, the person of the Father, not the... Of all three persons of the

Trinity. So the Trinity is not in the Bible? So again, we can, 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 could 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. I learned it from the NRSV Oxford Study Bible, is where I learned it from.

I'm talking about a mode of communication. So... 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, and if we start wrong, we're going to end wrong.

Take what you can do... Our presuppositions and our differences. Well, you can 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 a 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 industry here. So when people start telling me that, oh, I'm arrogant. I am arrogant.

I know, I know. But when people start going at me how I'm going about this conversation, it shows me that they're losing the conversation.

I know. So 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... And I want it to be diligent too. So when you hand me this package wrapped pre -formulated doctrine to me 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 use it and build this whole theology up. I'm only willing to give this in a small package to you.

You can take it or leave it. It only takes me 30 seconds. When I say that God is one with Israel, and when

I say that Jesus is Lord with Christians, that language is not infinitely flexible.

It contains meaning. Yeah, it does. And so wrapping that thought up, what

I'm doing as a Christian... It's at odds with the scholarship of the Bible. Yeah, slow down. I'm happily confessing that God is one and that Jesus is

Lord. I could confess that all day. That's what... Yeah, it's not a mere semantic or superficial confession.

It's a substantial confession. Yeah, it's when you got your ideas and your theology injected, falsely injected into it, that you've had your teachings, your seminaries have told you what it means, like you're suggesting that that's what my church has done for some reason.

When I'm telling you that's not the case, according to Oxford University, I'm telling you that's not the case.

That they say what? So that's why I asked you, what does God mean? Or what does God as one mean? We can talk about that.

I know, let's talk about it. But I confess that as a beautiful truth, as an essential truth, and I call it a communal belief shared by all

Christians. So it's not a mere intellectual fun idea. I don't want to be a part of your club. Well...

You don't want me to be a part of your club. I do, actually. I do, actually, yeah. I mean, to be honest, Justin, I really do. Your Calvinist God has predestined me to not be a part of your club.

I don't know that. No, I know that. Okay, I know that. I would want to invite you in with the clear boundary maintenance.

I'd want you to join Christians in confessing that God is one and that Jesus is Lord with the same essential substance of meaning to that.

Yeah, so that's what I'm asking you. I'm telling you that your understanding of God as one is at odds with scholarship on the

Bible. I don't care that. That's what all your Christian friends believe. That's what the historic Christianity believes, as this serves no relevance to me because scholarship is increasing.

We're learning more. And I'm telling you that I didn't learn this from Travis Anderson or from the group of Travis Anderson, whatever you said.

I learned this from my NRSV Oxford. Yeah, I was linking you to Travis Anderson, not the content of speech, but with the mode of speech, the sort of the conversational aggression.

Okay, not the content. You're right. It's more about the sort of the aggressive sort of interruption.

I don't think that represents the typical Latter -day Saint or even most LDS apologists. I don't represent

LDS apologists. I don't represent the Latter -day Saint church. I don't represent the hostlerites, whatever you said.

I'm not, I'm representing myself. You would want, I mean, just person to person, neighbor to neighbor.

It seems like intuitively though, you'd want to represent your community well though. I'm not representing my community.

Unavoidably you are, even if you don't want to. Okay, you can, that's fine for you to think that. That's great.

I want to talk about why God is one. I want to talk about what that means because when I talk about what it means for God to be one,

I can't but help with desire to speak with Christians, not from my own opinions.

I want to speak from the authority of scripture with Christians. Let's talk about it. What does God as one mean?

Well, I'm going to confess with Christians that God is uniquely self -existent, that he is uniquely, how would you put it?

He's not contingent. I do. Yeah, but give me a minute to unpack it. I'm happy to. Hand me the pre -wrapped message package.

I'm happy to talk about it. How about this? Let's set some ground rules. Give me a minute to unpack it and I'll give you a minute to unpack it.

I don't want a minute to unpack it. I want your understanding of what God as one means. Yeah, can

I answer you for a minute and then allow you to answer your position for a minute? Okay. I'm not trying to... This isn't a winning, losing thing.

So that God is one means that he is not defined by something outside of himself.

I'm human. Can you say that again? He's not defined by something ultimately outside of himself. His being, his essence is self -referential.

I am that I am. I am, right? So when we think about who God is, he's not in a class of beings.

He's a member of or in the class of he is the great I am. I am that I am. So he is uniquely self -existent, uniquely simple.

He's not in a class with other beings. His essence and existence are shared.

They're one. He is uniquely worthy of worship and he's uniquely free. So he's holy, he's free, he's simple, he's ultimate, he's transcendent, and he's not a member of a kind of society of other beings that are defined by a class.

Rather, he is the great I am. Okay, so you've injected all of that into what it means to be

God is one, right? When I look at the rest of script, the rest of scripture is helping me unpack that statement.

Okay, okay. So just in that rest of scripture you're talking about, you're just not including the gospel of John in that.

Well, the gospel of John would be, all 66 books should be consulted to unpack what that means.

Scripture interprets scripture. But first, I want to hear from you. What do you think it means for God to be one? No, I just, I still want to understand some of the things that you said.

I want to unpack those things. So God is one, right? Jesus, the

Father, one. All the way, right? Yes. Yes. Not as a society, but as a simple being.

Okay, so then you're suggesting that John 17 contradicts the understanding? No, no.

Okay, so the same way that we are supposed to be one with Jesus Christ is how Jesus Christ is one with the

Father, right? Yeah, in the context as... So what is the context of all the gospel of John with Jesus and God being one?

Let me respond. The meaning and context of John 17, as I understand it, is that there is a mutual indwelling that the

Father dwells in the Son, the Son dwells in the Father, and that this is true... That's not what you told me.

That's not what you told me. When I asked you what God is one means, you went on this... I'm so sorry. I thought you were quoting... I had made reference to the

Exodus account where God's... Where the... Sorry, Deuteronomy. I'm so sorry if I'm conflating.

Deuteronomy 6, 4. Right. We had made reference to that earlier, so I thought that's... When I think about the statement, hero is where the Lord our

God, the Lord is one, when I start unpacking that... Yeah, yeah, yeah. So like you said, scripture interprets scripture, right?

So we should probably use John to help us understand that text too. Eventually, yeah. I'm going to appeal to the

Oxford... NRSV Oxford Bible that I was telling you about too. But if you're saying, if you're suggesting that scripture interprets scripture, whatever that means, then shouldn't we use

Jesus saying that he's one with the Father the same way that he's one...

He's supposed to be one of his disciples? He also says in John 17 that as the Father sent me,

I send you. So let me ask you, Dustin. Yeah. Is that the language of equivalence? Yes, I would say yes.

Yes. So are we... I believe in a premortal life. I would say yes. So are we sent as only begotten sons? As monogamies?

That we are each unique? I don't see why that would pose an issue. So were you sent in the exact same way that Jesus was sent?

To perform the atonement? Or no. Right. So there you go.

So I'm making a point here. In John 17, it says, as the Father sent me,

I send you. That shows me that there's an analogy here that's not exact equivalence. Because we all...

I think we both agree actually, but we both substantially agree that there's a sense in which Jesus was sent that we're not sent.

So it's a limited... It's a limited connection. He was born of a virgin. He was born to be an atoning sacrifice.

He was sent as the only begotten son. I don't want to yell at you over a siren, sir.

You're saying there's a way in which he was sent as the only begotten? That we weren't. So when he says, as the

Father sent me, I send you, it's by analogy. There's meaningful connection there that's not equivalent.

So John 17, that prayer is an analogy. That language is analogical.

So there's a sense in which the Son is sent that we are sent also. There's also, and when we zoom out to the rest of scripture, even by Latter -day

Saint standards, there's a sense in which Jesus was sent that we're not sent. There's dissimilarity and there's similarity.

So the language can be used to establish the link, the connection, the shared features.

But it doesn't get you all the way to we're born of virgins. We're only begotten children.

We're an atoning sacrifice. So here's my bigger argument. Take that example in John 17, as the

Father sent me, I sent you, and apply that same sort of framework onto the oneness of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

And then the in this life oneness of the believers who are living out the gospel in the

Upper Room Discourse, I think it was a John 13 to John 17. In the Upper Room Discourse, the whole idea is that as the

Father dwells in the Son, and as the Father and the Son dwell in God's people, there's a mutual indwelling there.

As they live that out by the Holy Spirit, there's a unity. There's a oneness that is presented to the rest of the world that shows that we are of God, that shows that we're loved by God, that shows that we belong to Jesus.

Yeah. So for the, for the, when

God, sorry, when Jesus Christ says the, how the Father sent him the same way he will send the apostles. I want to read that specifically.

Please do. I just, I just, where is it at? That's what I'm asking. Is that the end of John 17? Uh, let's see here.

Yeah. Give the delay. I'm going to use

Google to find the exact. That's fine. First, and then I'm going to zero in on with my, with my, uh, as the

Father sent me. Oh, I was wrong.

It's John 20 verse 21. That's fine. Did I say 2021?

Yeah. Yeah. 2021. Yeah. Forgive me. I, I mislocated that. That's not in John 17.

I think there's something similar in 17. Actually, if you give me a second to just skim. You didn't know.

I mean, I'll, I'll let you find that verse, but you're suggesting that when, when Jesus Christ says that in, in 2021, that, um, as the

Father sent me, even so I send you the language is pretty different. John 17 for the oneness of God.

The language of comparison, the as language. No, no, it's a little deeper than that. If you go and read verse 21.

Sure. And then I've said it. Would you like to read 17 out loud with me in a second? Sure.

20 verse 21 to begin with though. Sure. Peace be with you. As the

Father sent me. I also send you. Oh, you're reading that first. Yeah. My bad.

Um, okay. Going back to 17. All right.

Let's buckle up. Father, the hour has come. Oh, where are you starting? Verse one glorify your son so that the son may glorify you.

Since you gave him authority over all flesh, that he may give eternal life to everyone you have given him.

This is eternal life that they may know you. The only true God and the one you have sent

Jesus Christ. I have glorified you on earth by completing the work you gave me to do.

Now, father glorify me in your presence with the glory. I had with you before the world existed.

I have revealed your name to the people. You gave me from the world. They were yours and you gave them to me and they have kept your word.

Now they know that you have. Now they know that everything you have given me is from you. Because I have given them the words you gave me.

They have received them and I've known for certain that I came from you. They have believed that you sent me.

I pray for them. I'm not praying for the world, but I'm praying for those you have. For those you have given me because they are yours.

Everything I have is yours and everything you have is mine and I'm glorified in them.

I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world and I am coming to you. Holy father, protect them by your name that you have given me so that they may be one as we are one.

While I was with them, I was protecting them by your name that you have given me. I guarded them and not one of them is lost except the son of destruction.

So that the scripture may be fulfilled. Now I am coming to you and I speak these things in the world so that they may have joy, that they may have my joy completed in them.

I have given them your word. The world hated them because they are not of this world, not of the world, just as I am not of the world.

I am not praying that you take them out of the world, but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world just as I am not of the world.

Sanctified and by the truth, your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.

I sanctify myself for them so that they also may be sanctified by the truth.

I pray not only for these, but also for those who believe in me through their word.

May they all be one as you father are in me. I must pause there. Let's pay special attention here.

May they all be one as you father are in me and I am in you.

May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you sent me, so that the world may believe you sent me.

I have given them the glory that you have given me, so that they may be one as we are one.

I am in them and you are in me so that they may be completely one.

That the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them as you have loved me.

Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, so that they will see my glory which you have given me because you have loved me before the world's foundation.

Righteous father, the world has not known you. However, I have known you and they have known and you and they have known that you sent me.

I made your name known to them and will continue to make it known so that the love you have loved me with may also be, may be in them and I may be in them.

Yeah, so it's a mere comparison. There are, you'll have to unpack that, sorry.

So like, yeah, so when you're suggesting that we should use John 20, 21 to interpret these verses that Jesus Christ saying the same way father has sent me,

I send my apostles, that same kind of comparison is being made here. It's not an unlimited equivalence, even by LDS standards.

So, um, you're not really what I asked. You won't be a member of the Godhead in this life. Yes or no question is what

I asked, but okay. So, what I want to re -ask you and I'll try to better answer it. No, it's no, sorry.

This is just a mere like comparison just as John 20, 21. It is an, it is a drawing comparison.

It's not an unlimited equivalence. Okay. Even by your own standards. So when he says that they all may be one as thou father are to me and I am thee, that they may be one in us.

That's a, that is a mere comparison. Well, first of all, uh, notice what I, I mentioned earlier, the mutual indwelling.

I, so the in language, the in, I -N -U -N. Yeah, the same way Christ is in the father is how the apostles should be, not just in the father, but also in Jesus Christ.

Right, in this life. Yep. So that the world can see. Yes. And so, and so this is a mere comparison.

This is, this is like, this is not to, uh, um. I don't become a member of the Godhead in this life.

Neither do you believe that. I'm not, I'm not talking about what I believe. I'm asking about what you believe concerning these verses.

Your, your beliefs are on the table here as well. Okay. That's not, I know what else. Okay, I can talk.

Right. So by Latter -day Saint standards, this is not. You keep appealing to Latter -day Saint standards when I'm here to talk about your religion.

But I'm doing this in contradistinction. For, for purposes of clarity. And I don't want there to be a pretended sort of.

For purposes of clarity, let's talk about how this is a mere comparison. Just like John 20, 21 is.

Right. There are things about the oneness that share features. There's an extension or an analogy there.

There's a comparison there. The oneness shared and the oneness extended. The oneness inherent to God and the oneness shared by his people.

The oneness that is natural to the father and the son. And that's, that is, that was already so.

And the oneness that God's people participate in. So that the world knows that they're sent by God.

Okay, so, so when Peter tells us to be partakers of the divine nature. The great, great analogy. The kind of oneness, right?

We, we partake in something. We have to partake in it. God doesn't become that by partaking.

We partake. Okay, if I partake in sin, am I a sinner? Can we pause for a second? No, no, if I partake in sin, am I a sinner?

Um, by normal rhetorical standards. Yeah, so if I partake in divine, what does that mean for me?

Well, it doesn't mean. Okay, let's talk about that. But can we pause and make sure we're wrapping up John 17?

Sure. Okay, I don't want to evade or endlessly shelve the Petrine passage.

But the oneness here, even in Latter -day Saint frameworks.

Is not of unlimited equivalence. Because there is still, even by Latter -day Saint standards.

A oneness that the Father and the Son share, that you don't share. Aaron, I'm talking about your beliefs.

No, we're going to keep the Latter -day Saint faith on the table. In contradistinction to the historic Christian faith. Because even by Latter -day

Saint standard. Even by Latter -day Saint, Latter -day Saint standards. That's not exact equivalence. The oneness language.

I'm not here to represent the Latter -day Saint faith. I'm not. You are a Latter -day Saint. You're here to represent though, right? Your church.

You'd feel comfortable saying that. I want to as best as I can represent historical Christianity. So I don't, I wouldn't claim that for myself?

You should though. Okay. Thank you for, yeah. There's a criteria on the Bible that I should represent historic Christianity.

You should aim to represent your community and your history. You should aim to represent the LDS faith.

Either be a Latter -day Saint. Or be a secular deconstructionist, Daniel McLeveland style.

So you don't get to decide that for me. My relationship with my God is none of your concern.

It is. I can call you on the carpet. It's none of your concern. It's not. Why not? I don't need you to define my relationship with God.

You have no authority to do that. You're, you don't, you can't, you don't make sense. You're not being consistent with these texts.

You've, you've told me that these texts right here, that this precious intercessory prayer of Jesus Christ is a mere comparison.

And that's how I'm supposed to take it. There's a oneness and a sharedness and an analogy there.

A oneness in deity, which you reject. Which you reject. Which is clearly taught. Which you reject.

But that's okay. I'm willing to reason with you. But I think you're, I think you're trying to be domineering here. I don't care how you are perceiving me.

You should, at some level. That's part of being a neighbor. I mean, to care what people think is not an ultimate concern.

But it is an intermediate concern. To be courteous. To be kind. To repent when you overextend.

That's part of good interfaith dialogue. So are you courteous and kind then? When you come to my temple?

I'm not in the temple. I'm on a public domain sidewalk. So yeah, when you come to the public domain sidewalk of the walkway of the temple to try and convert

Christians into an apostate, nonsensical Christianity.

I don't. Sorry. When you come here to do that, is that, for me, I don't care how you perceive that. For me, that's unkind.

So what it shows me though is that you're here in part as a member of this community. I'm a member of this community, but I don't speak for them at all.

And I'm sure that half the things that I said today, I would like... There's a Latter -day Saint who I believe will be saved who disagrees with that.

So I hope this will lodge in your mind and you'll remember this. You may not speak for your community, but you should speak with your community.

Yeah, it's not going to be lodged in my mind. It's just not. Because it's just not true. And I don't. I don't claim to.

You should seek to speak in unity with the Latter -day Saint faith. Okay.

Theology is not a solo, free enterprise of idiosyncratic, do -it -yourself project.

To do theology is to do theology, necessarily, under some sort of authority in community with other people.

Does my church tell its members to do theology? Not by that language, but essentially to think about things.

Okay, to think about things is the same thing... The glory of God is intelligence? Yeah, there isn't a... That's not what that means. It's being dishonest.

What does intelligence mean in that context? Part of the substance of that... Well, part of the substance of that is to think deeply and to conform yourself to truth wherever it can be found, and to do that, ultimately, to do that in unity with your own community.

To do that, it's both individual and communal. You are a member of a church, and you're an individual.

You are in a community, and you're an individual. So it matters whether you're speaking against your church...

To you, it does. It matters to your own church. It matters to your own community. It matters to God. It matters to you?

It matters biblically for saints to seek unity with God's people.

So if you claim to be of God's people, you should seek a kind of unity with your own prophetic tradition, with your own community.

So even if you... Yeah, so you, as a person who believes in Jesus Christ all the way, should seek unity with his prophets.

That's, I mean... In principle, yeah. Amen. Living prophets. If I had living prophets other than Jesus, I ought to seek unity with them.

Well, we could talk about that, but the bigger point here that we're on, the sort of the original point here, is that to be a

Christian, I want to be in unity with... I want to be under the authority of God's word, and I want to speak as best

I can in unity with God's people. Both. I'm speaking as best I can in unity with the text given to me.

But does it matter to you whether you are in unity with your own prophetic tradition, your own prophets and apostles?

What does prophetic tradition mean? What your leaders have taught. So the prophetic tradition is that the prophets and apostles have disagreements in theology, and they debate each other, and the church makes official stances, and it also says things that, it doesn't matter what you believe in this case.

That's my tradition, so I fit into that paradigm. I don't... So if you took a position that your leaders spoke to, and you agreed with them, you'd want to speak at least to some partial unity with your leaders where they have agreed with you, right?

So what's an example of... I mean, that is a real question. Like, when you take a position that agrees with at least some of your prophets and apostles, you should want to speak in unity with them, right?

That's not a gotcha question. It's just a softball. Yeah, I don't...

Yeah, so it's not just Dustin. Yes, exactly. You should want to speak with other

Latter -day Saints, especially authorities that share your... Exactly, but you should want to speak with them. And this is where LDS Apologetics, I think, needs to do a little bit of a course correction.

This isn't about your free solo enterprise, do -it -yourself kind of project. That's totally what

I'm doing. Well, I mean, where your leaders have... Prophets and apostles have spoken to an issue, you should speak at least consciously with them, not for them, but with them, and at least where they've contradicted you or where they've disagreed with you, at least be conscious of the fact...

So when they tell me to go study, like you just said, to think things through, and I actually do that, how am

I at odds with them? What are you talking about? When I actually go and I study theology, the

Bible's actually just contradictory. You haven't found that out yet.

So when I go and do that and I go and study, how am I then at odds with what my prophets and apostles are teaching me?

Let's take that as an example. If you have a particular passage in the Bible that you think is contradictory, you should ask yourself, have my...

It is contradictory, but go ahead. Well, also ask yourself, have your leaders found this passage contradictory?

My leaders have told me that there are contradictions in the Bible, so why would I not expect them to be talking? But when they've spoken to the passage that you speak on...

They haven't. When they do, okay? When they do speak with us to the same passage, it should be a part of the impetus of LDS apologetics to lean on, appeal to, speak in unity with your own leaders.

Okay, so when my own leaders point out a contradiction, what am I supposed to do with that? Speak in unity with them. Take your faith seriously.

Own it. You're kind of suggesting that my leaders don't do that. Well, I'm suggesting that LDS apologists tend to be detached from LDS prophets and apostles.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said. I don't have that similar experience. I don't understand what you mean. Well, the

King Follett Discourse would be a good example. If you're going to take a certain kind of reading of the

King Follett Discourse... Yeah, so what is so, for example... Finish the thought. Hold on, hold on. No, no, no. Let's not do that. No, let's do that. Let's do that. When you take...

What is the church position... I don't want to be... I don't want to play the aggression game. I don't want to play that either.

But you're building off, again, a false presupposition. What is the official church stance on the King Follett Discourse? Let me finish the thought.

When you take a position on how to read the King Follett Discourse, you should have in mind how your own prophets and apostles have interpreted the

King Follett Discourse. It should be a variable. It should be on the table. So then what is the church's use and stance on the

King Follett Discourse? There's not a single... There's not an exclusive position. Okay, then why do

I have to be exclusive on that too? What are you talking about? Well, where your leaders agree with you, you should speak in unity with them.

And where they disagree with you, you should be self -conscious and open about that. I am totally open about that. Okay, well, good.

Integrate it into the conversation. But you should speak with them. If you have real prophets and apostles...

And when they tell me to go study it out and research, I'm speaking with them. That's what I'm doing. Well, I mean, on the content.

When Latter -day Saint apologists take a position that is not shared, a particular position, that's not shared by Latter -day

Saint prophets... So when they find out new... No, no, I want to finish the sentence. I know you do. I know you do. I'm aware of that as I speak. But when they find a position that's new...

And like, so for example, the DNA thing with the Book of Mormon. And the apologists find out that the

Nephites... Or sorry, that the Native Americans don't have 100 % Jewish DNA. What does the

Church do? What does the Church do? Keep talking. I'm asking you, what does the

Church do? No, you know. You know, right? I'm not certain... They changed the intro to the Book of Mormon, right? I'm willing to dialogue with you.

Okay, so when the scholars disagree... If you just want to talk, you can talk. Okay, what you've been... What you were able to do a lot, but...

So when the scholars disagree with the leadership of the Church, whatever that means, what is, in the past, what has the leadership of the

Church shown to do in those cases? They changed the intro to the

Book of Mormon. A couple times. So why should I expect anything different from what

I'm doing? I shouldn't. I shouldn't. And your criteria of telling me how

I should, and how and what I should worship, that's not up to you. It's up to God. Yeah, exactly.

Yeah. Your Calvinist presupposition, baby God, if He exists, has predestined me to be this way.

Justin, do you want to have a dialogue, or do you just want to kind of do a sermon and wrap things up? I mean, I've asked you a couple questions and you just didn't answer.

You could have continued the conversation, but you didn't. I think you're following in the tradition of Travis Anderson of being...

of not wanting people to complete their thoughts. Yeah, I don't want you to build an idea off of a false presupposition, because if we start wrong, we'll end wrong.

Which is a quote from the key following. There's a basic courtesy, though, in allowing people to complete a thought. Okay, a basic courtesy is...

Is that in the Bible? To be courteous to all. Yeah. Okay. But the basic courtesy of letting people finish, like there's no one ever cuts anyone off in the

Bible. That's just common sense application. Okay. Justin, I don't want to...

I don't want to rhetorically battle with you. I don't want to have a... an aggressive rhetorical back and forth.

No, that's great. I appreciate that. That's great. I don't care. I just don't.

You're here to convert the members of my church. And as long as you are doing that, I will be a disturber and annoyer to that.

That's totally fine with me. Is that the capacity in which you're here? Sure. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Just like DNC 71 tells me.

What's that say? It says to go in public and private to your... Can we read it?

Yes, for sure. Would you like me to do a phone flashlight?

No, I can see. If you need it, that's totally fine. Like... Go for it. Okay. So, behold, thus saith the...

It's very short. It's 11 verses. It's... But I think it's going to give it context because people think that this is specifically to Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, but it's a specific verse that makes that not true.

Behold, thus saith the Lord unto my servants, Joseph Smith Jr. and Sidney Rigdon, at the time has verily come that it is necessary and expedient that you should open your mouths in proclaiming my gospel, that the things...

Sorry, I lost my mind. The things of the kingdom, expounding mysteries thereof out of the scriptures, according to that portion of the spirit and power, which shall be given you, even as I will.

Verily I say unto you, proclaim unto the word in reasons round about and in the church also for the space of the season, even until it shall be made known unto you.

Verily this is a mission for a season, which I give unto you. Wherefore labor ye diligently in my vineyard, call upon the inhabitants of the earth, and bear record, and prepare ye the way of the commandments and revelations which are to come.

Now behold, this is wisdom. Whoso readeth, let him understandeth and receive also.

Word is very important. For unto him that receiveth it shall be given more abundantly even power.

Wherefore confound your enemies, call upon them to meet with you, both in public and private, inasmuch as ye are faithful, their shame shall be made manifest.

Wherefore let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord. Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, There is no weapon that is formed against you that shall prosper, according as it is.

And if any man lifteth his voice against you, he shall be confounded in mine own due time. Wherefore keep my commandments, even they are true and faithful, even so, amen.

So as I heard that, it sounds like you are commanded here to allow your religious enemies,

I know you don't mean enemy in the strongest sense, but in some sense, to give their reasons. Yeah. So if you're going to obey this passage, by the way,

I mean this 100 % genuinely, I appreciate the boldness of Latter -day Saint opponents wanting to meet in a public place and discuss the big issues.

Can we agree on that? Yeah. Not a debate point. I really appreciate that. But it sounds like even according to this section of the

DNC, part of that is listening to someone make their case. Yeah.

So you're saying that this is saying to not interrupt people. At least let them make their basic stated case with reasons.

Give their reasons. Yeah. The same way you interpret revelation about the holy, holy, holy, the same way that you're going to interpret this.

You're going to interject your own meanings and not say what it actually says, which is when I let you go case for case, give me a little package, that's not, is that not letting you bring your reasons?

Honest question for you. Do you think it's a reasonable application of this section to just shut people down rhetorically and now allow them to state their case?

Is that what I've done to you? Is that how you feel? At times. Yeah. Honest question. Rhetorically, not through content merely, but through the rhetoric of sort of the aggressive interruptions of not allowing someone to complete their thoughts.

If I've not allowed you to complete your thoughts, forgive me. I want to give you more space to do that. But it sounds like according to your own scriptures, it sounds like according to the basic behavioral standards of your own community.

Hold on. It sounds like there should be some threshold of a back and forth where you can state your reason that I can state my reasons.

Yeah. So for example, when you tell me things that like, oh, you're talking in the same manner as Travis Anderson, is that a concrete thought that you're able to get across?

By itself, yeah. Okay. So that's just, that's at least one case where I was able to let you do that. Yeah. Amen. Yeah. I don't want to demonize you as though you haven't allowed any of that.

Yeah. I'm not saying you're the worst here, that you've only ever been bad about this. No. Okay. So we've had substantial dialogue in the past, right?

We've had meaningful discussion in the past. This has been totally meaningful to me. I haven't felt like in the past, it's been just an aggressive back and forth.

I feel like we've been able to go back and forth substantially prior to this. I feel differently, but okay.

Okay. It seems like though, he would represent the Latter -day Saint community best.

If there's a... I'm not representing the Latter -day Saint community. I don't represent the Latter -day Saint community. Sorry, waiting for the car sound.

Oh, that's a motorcycle. I don't want to shout over it. Okay. Well, I mean, that itself is an issue.

Maybe we can speak to that real quickly. Would you like to speak about that? Can we speak a little bit to that? Sure. What do you have to say?

It's my responsibility as a Christian to try to obey God's word out of love for God and love for neighbor.

And in that, to be mindful of the fact that even if I don't think of myself as representing the local

Christian churches or the Christian community, I unavoidably reflect on the

Christian community. So I... Yeah, that's just your understanding. I just have a different one. Well, I mean, I don't want Christ to have a bad name.

I don't speak for Christ as though I'm like, I'm over him or equal to him.

But what I say, though, reflects upon him. And I don't want Christ's name to be profaned through my bad behavior or my discourtesy.

I've had to repent before through my second debate with Kwaku. Just, I got super aggressive then.

I don't think I was a good representative or a good example of a good debate or a dialogue partner there.

But I should want to represent my Christian community really well. And I don't think it's mean or...

I don't think... I'm not trying to trap you when I say I would hope for my Latter -day Saints to try to represent their own community well, not merely in the content of their speech, but in the manner of their speech.

Again, I don't, I don't... Not a singular Latter -day Saint doesn't represent our faith.

Like, I just, I don't understand. I don't even understand how that's relevant to what we're talking about.

I'm not... What we talk about is just as important as how we talk about it. Okay, so...

I mean, have you... Are you perceiving me as, like, trying to belittle you?

Are you perceiving me like I'm... I don't understand. Not at this moment.

No. What is an example of something I've done in the past that is perceived that way by you?

In this conversation, when I was trying to talk about how God is one and how

Jesus is Lord and how that's packaged together. I mean, you wanted to cut that off real quick. Yeah, I did. You failed to understand my perspective that to suggest that we should continue off the basis that God is one is a false start.

Because everything you say after that is not only irrelevant, but also I'm not going to be paying attention to that because we started wrong.

So let's go and fix this definition before we can build off of that. But the same way

I didn't respect you in continuing your pre -made message in a package for me, you didn't respect my idea that I think that we should talk about your presuppositions first.

So let me give you an example. Just if someone were to make premise A, premise B, and then conclusion in a 30 to 60 second manner,

I think it would be better in general to then pause and say, well, then let's talk about premise

A upon which your argument is based and then focus on that. I found it extremely effective to not do that, especially in these kind of conversations.

Well, there's a basic courtesy in just human interaction to allowing people to complete thought.

That's the big idea. Yeah, I feel like you weren't able to allow me to complete my thought that we should stop there and focus on what

God is one means. Okay. Well, I don't want to interrupt you needlessly. I know there's kind of an excited back and forth, but I really do think that when

Travis Anderson was here, it was weeks ago, months ago. I have no idea. Yeah, that was a really poor example of Latter -day

Saint behavior that is not representative of a typical Latter -day Saint we meet on the street.

Latter -day Saints are a courteous and kind, almost conflict avoidant kind of people. Yeah, I don't think that,

I don't think that Travis would claim to represent the church either, but also we don't need your definitions on us.

We don't need you to call us kind. I'm not asking to be part of your club. I'm not asking you to perceive me as kind.

I don't understand this barrage you're going on where this is how Latter -day Saints should be when we don't want to be a part of your club.

Well, you claim the New Testament, right? What does claim the New Testament, what does that mean? It's part of your canon. Yes. So the

New Testament, Paul talks about showing perfect courtesy to all people. Okay, and you're assuming that that is the exact equivalency, the word courtesy in English today as it was in Greek.

I would hope that Latter -day Saints and evangelicals could both at least pause and say, we both want to pursue a maturity in the presenting of courtesy.

We want to grow in neighborly courtesies in the way we interact. Non -controversial, hopefully.

This is for sure. My subjective opinion is that I would find it courteous if he never came here again. That would be courteous to me.

So do you see how that our interpretation of courteous is going to be a little bit differently? Yeah, we can talk about that. Okay.

But yeah, we're going to be doing evangelism. Okay, yeah, and so will I. Yeah, yeah.

So when we talk, you know, maybe going forward, maybe we just help to have ground rules.

No. Or guidelines. No, I mean, you're giving me plenty of guidelines to follow.

Yeah. Okay, well, what do you want to do now? Well, let's talk about how, let's talk about the

Trinity in the Bible. I know earlier when you talked about how we're discussing on, in the oneness, how the

Father and the Son are part of this Trinity and they were not part of this Trinity. When you say a part of this Trinity, it made it sound like the

Trinity was in the Bible, like substantially. Contained, but not explicitly expressed. So I was just like,

I don't, that's not, I don't understand how you could. I'll give you an example. Yeah. I think it's the early 20th century.

Latter -day Saint thinkers taught a doctrine. I don't know what it was by this name, but at some point it was called divine investiture.

Heard of it? The idea is that, forgive me if I'm misrepresenting that.

This is to the best of my memory. Divine investiture, according to LDS thinkers, is the idea that the

Son can represent the Father almost in a manner where he identifies himself as the

Father. Yeah, I know. I think we still believe that to a certain extent. I think that there's people that disagree. I think that's evident in the Book of Mormon and I know what you're talking about.

That's totally fine. So the big idea there is that Latter -day Saints are putting a label on a pattern that they see within the scriptures, even though the scriptures do not use the exact express label.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, the word Trinity doesn't need to be in the Bible for the Trinity to be there. That's not my, it's the explicit doctrine and bullet points of what constitutes the

Trinity are not there. That's my issue. The word Trinity doesn't matter. The words great apostasy don't show up in the

Book of Mormon, but I believe it anyway. That's not what I'm talking about. So when we talk about a doctrine being or teaching being in scripture, what do you think that means?

That a what? That a doctrine would be found in the scripture. So what does that mean?

So that there is a singular passage which explains from a singular author something clearly, but even then we're translating from languages that are essentially dead.

And for every definition of every word is going to have some sort of different little twist, little difference in language in our language today.

I mean, like not to go on another monologue, but like the word adoption, right? Right now, our word adoption and that word and as Paul uses it, yes, could be used the same way, 100%.

But there's also cases in which that word was used to adopt, like a man had a bastard son.

In order for that son to gain the same properties and rights as that father, he would have to be adopted the same way the father would adopt someone who wasn't a son at all.

And there's nuances for every single word like that in the New Testament. I know I just went on a little monologue. That's okay.

But like to choose what you're saying. Well, think with me on that for a second.

There's the question of is a certain doctrine found in the scriptures? I would say yes.

But I would say it should probably be done by a singular author, right? Well, it just depends on the scope of your summary statement.

Sometimes the scope of a summary doctrinal statement is holistic. It expands multiple authors.

It's kind of a bringing together of everything. I think you'd agree with me at some level that there's an exegesis that has to be done.

Right. Paying attention to the original authorial intent. And then there's a kind of synthesis of the whole.

Is that fair? A summarizing of what the scriptures in totality speak. I don't know if I would claim that for the canon.

What about the LDS canon? I don't think I'd claim that either. I would say that's true solely for the

Book of Mormon alone, but it's written differently than the other books of the LDS canon. If you just took the Book of Mormon and the DNC, is it possible to read the distinctive

LDS canon and the Pearl of Great Price and then summarize its teaching?

No, no, that's not because the purposes of each of those books in the Pearl of Great Price are different purposes.

They're used differently for different things. The Book of Mormon is a singular codified text that was abridged by one person who added small plates onto it.

That's a different thing than 66 books who were originally addressed to... most of them,

I would say, were addressed to other people. So how would you do synthesis? How would you summarize doctrine?

How would I summarize doctrine? How would I find doctrine? How would you go about summarizing doctrinal truth?

If the scriptures sort of can't bear the fruit of that... That's not what

I... but I didn't say that. Forgive me, I'm not trying to mischaracterize you. So the question is, how would

Dustin seek to synthesize the teaching of your canon? Okay, that's a different question than I was answering.

So the purpose of my life is to be in a relationship with Jesus Christ and be in a perfect love and unity with Him that I have become like Him.

I have left the presence of God, similarly to how Adam and Eve left the presence of God when they were cast out of the garden.

That was true when I was born. And in my life, I need to enter back into the presence of Jesus Christ.

Or I need to enter back into the presence of the Father by way of Jesus Christ. So what you've just done, as I understand it, is you've summarized...

I'm sorry to cut you off. No, I think that's perfectly taught within solely the Book of Moses alone. I don't need the

Book of Mormon to teach me that. Okay, I guess maybe you're not understanding... Like, you've provided a summary.

I guess I'm asking you about how do you go about arriving at a summary? Yeah, so I just read the

Book of Moses. You read the whole book and then you summarize what it teaches? Joseph Smith's Book of Moses, to clarify.

So are you able to take multiple books in your canon and make multi -book summations?

Then I can find those doctrines elsewhere, sure. But I think you're suggesting to me that I need to, in order to find a doctrine,

I need to use both things from Leviticus and things from the Book of Mormon and combine them together in order to formulate my doctrine.

I don't do that. At least that it's cognizant of the whole. Right. I don't...

The scriptures are universal to me. They're not consistent. Is that what you mean by that?

Yeah, the Bible is not consistent. That's my paradigm. I don't... Okay. Yeah. Okay, yeah.

So, when Latter -day Saints express what they summarize the distinctive

LDS canon to teach, I think it's of interest, at least to Evangelicals, whether what you're teaching conforms to a historic teaching of your leadership.

Yeah, you keep going to this leadership point. I don't understand your purpose behind it.

I feel like you're trying to... Instead of talking about doctrinal points, you're trying to entrap me.

And I feel like it's a little bit... You're attacking my character. Not my character, but the way that I'm going about things, because you don't like it.

So, for example, like, the things that I'm saying is now our past leaders said in the past.

That is perfectly consistent, because today we have leaders who are saying things different than what leaders have said in the past.

This paradigm you're trying to put me in that, you know, that I'm somehow bound to what prophets who don't even speak my language and who didn't even speak to me,

I'm somehow bound by them the same way that I'm bound by my living ones today. I'm following my living prophets today.

You're putting this pattern on me that I just don't think is there. Well, question for you, what role or what relevance do recently deceased

LDS leaders have for you? I don't know what you mean. The same as...

Gordon B. Hinckley. The same as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

The same as Lorenzo Snow. But not the current president. What do you mean? Like, yeah, the same as the current president.

Okay, so along those lines, it seems like Latter -day Saints should want to situate their position.

Are you suggesting that the Latter -day Saints want everything that all the LDS prophets have ever said to be in perfect line?

Is that what you're saying with the LDS? I've expressed it even more modestly. Okay, but of course that's what

Latter -day Saints want. I'm sure that's what anyone would want. That's just actually not how it is. And so I don't need to have that parent.

I don't need to put myself in those bars. Let me express it modestly and tell me what you think. What about just taking stock of what your leaders have spoken about the particular subject and then situating yourself as either in alignment with the leaders in general or not?

So maybe having your own position, but at least being cognizant of, or perhaps speaking in unity with your own leaders.

Does that have any bearing for you? Yeah, I don't understand how I'm not speaking in unity with my own leaders.

LDS apologists in the modern positions? I think a number of Blake Osler's positions, for example, aren't in unity with some pretty major historical

LDS leaders. Okay, a major historical LDS elite is that black people were neutral in heaven.

I don't believe that. So why would I try to seek unity with believing that? So you would try to seek unity perhaps with the leaders who took the position that...

I assume Latter -day Saint leaders have recently rejected the idea that black people were neutral in premortality.

Have you read the official declaration from 1978? Yes, but that didn't give any...

that did not specify the theological justifications for the ban. That was part of the drama after the 1978 declaration.

Yeah, wouldn't it... I mean, if... Concerning what that says, wouldn't it necessarily already mean that...

No, there was an internal LDS dispute over whether the theological justifications for the ban still were true.

So there was back and forth within the LDS community over whether the 1978 declaration should be taken to imply that the justifications previously given for it were incorrect.

For to what degree? Okay, so what is then... who am I seeking unity with? Just to be clear,

I've spoken with black Latter -day Saints on the public domain sidewalks outside of Temple Square who themselves took the position that black skin was owing to their behavior in premortality.

Again, you're appealing to Latter -day Saints that you've met. Again, I cannot express enough how little

I care about them. Like how little... that it's even relevant. I can tell you...

I have met a Christian, fully active Protestant that told me that Jesus Christ was a created being. Not lying to you.

100 % on the mission. You don't care, though, about that. Not really. It's against the Christian teaching.

Okay, that... What you told black people who are lesser in heaven is against the LDS teachings.

It's against scripture and it's against every major historical Christian figure. Racism is?

Whether Jesus was a created being. Oh, sorry, I thought... Yeah, I mean, they would go against the whole thrust of the early creeds, the medieval creeds, the

Protestant confessions. I don't... They would go against the swath of evangelical, Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox Christianity that Jesus is merely...

Yeah, all in a process. Yeah, I don't have any problem... Well, the idea that Jesus is merely a created being. I mean, we know what Jesus told Joseph the creeds were, right?

Yeah, I don't have an issue with that. My point, though, is that to say that Jesus is created... Let's just take that.

I don't want to evade that. Let's just camp on it for just a minute or two. If someone comes to me and says that,

I'm a Protestant, but I believe that Jesus is not divine, rather, he was created. Or he's divine, but I define that as something like he was created, you know, asterisk, whatever.

I'm cutting you off. Just for your information, he sourced that doctrine from the Bible saying

Jesus Christ was the firstborn. Yes. Maybe that'll help you with... Yeah, yeah. Let's say he comes and he takes, as Colossians 1, 16 or 17 or something like that.

He's the firstborn of all creation. He says, oh, that means that Jesus was a created being, he says.

And he says I'm a Protestant. My response to him would not merely be to look at Colossians 1, just zoom out a few verses around that verse, and you can say, oh, it's not saying that Jesus is created.

He's saying he's the creator of all creation. But a part of my response would be the whole historic church has, under the authority of Scripture, spoken with unity that that verse isn't to be interpreted to mean that Jesus is ultimately a created being.

So what I'm doing to this confessed Protestant is I'm saying the infallible authority of God's word, responsible interpretation, right, as the ultimate authority of God's word, responsibly interpreted, runs the other direction on the deity of Christ, and as a subordinate authority, as a relevant variable, the whole church speaks in unity against that position under the authority of Scripture.

I would say, I would add, under your interpretation of the authority of Scripture, not that I agree with that doctrine or the whole history of all the

Christian churches' interpretation to that Scripture, but my point of showing that was that I'm not going to hold you to that standard.

I'm not going to tell you Protestants believe in a created Jesus because I heard a Protestant say that, but I feel like that's what you're doing to Latter -day

Saints. Well, I feel like even especially with this African -American male, man that she bit at Devil's Square.

Yeah. And you're, I mean, I feel like you're kind of... Yeah, so if your church spoke with sort of unanimous authority that all the theological justifications for the ban in pre -1978 were false, right, then that would be one thing.

Sorry, waiting for the motorcycle. If what this young African -American man said to me was contrary to the united position of your own community, that would be different, right?

But as the case was, according to the year we were in, because there's a kind of, as I understand it, the

LDS tradition has sort of increasingly addressed this, right? But there was a season of ambiguity over whether the theological justifications given pre -1978 still held.

There wasn't a Latter -day Saint unity on this issue. When I talk about whether Heavenly Father was a sinful mortal, for example, what

I'm trying to do is I'm trying to say when Christians affirm that God never was a sinful mortal, we're not merely affirming that as our opinion or our mere interpretation of Scripture.

What we're doing is we're saying this is necessarily true, it's beautiful, it should provoke worship, and we're speaking in unity with the entire church.

Okay, I have an example. In the Reformation, was there a season of ambiguity for whether or not baptism was necessary for salvation?

You'd have to unpack necessary, but there was a baptismal regeneration from default view. Was it possible for someone to die having never received baptism and be saved?

Was there a season of ambiguity about that? In the early church there was. In the Reformation. I'm not smart enough to know the historical, whether there's exceptions to this, but it's a pretty standard

Protestant view that we're justified by faith, not by baptism. So I'm not sure.

I'm talking about Protestantism. I'm talking about the era. There was a season of ambiguity during the

Reformation about how to be justified. Can I steelman your case here? For sure.

In the early church there developed a view of baptismal regeneration that seemed to have led to delayed baptisms where people tried to get baptized shortly before they died so that they could sort of cover their butts and avoid serious transgressions.

For how long did that take place? I don't know. I don't know. But sure, there's seasons of ambiguity.

But when I can speak in unity with the church, I want to. And to the degree

I can, I want to. Yeah, don't apply the season of ambiguity on me if that applies to you as well. I'm not saying that we don't have ambiguity for certain issues.

I'm not. And that's what I'm... I don't even... There's nothing about that. I'm saying that... There have been seasons of ambiguity on big doctrines.

Right, right. Huge things. But what I'm saying is where I can speak in unity with the church, I should. And I should seek to max out on unity with the

Christian church. That's how you perceive that. That's what I'm not doing. Among the

Latter -day Saint apologist community, there's a kind of irreverent indifference to your own prophets and apostles. I don't have that.

I don't... That's... I don't... I'm not a... You have... You have spoken to that effect in our conversations. Okay, that's fine that you interpret it that way.

I'll defend Bruce L. McConaghy to the day I die. I'm not like... I'm not what you're saying I am. I'm not like that.

I get... I can respect that Brigham Young thought that Joseph Smith thought that Adam was God and disagree with him.

I can... I can... But I can still respect that he thought that. I can see where he got that idea. And if it's at all reflected in the scriptures.

And not care. And not care. But I can still respect it. And revere him as a prophet.

And still disagree. And I don't think that you fully understand that that is... That is...

I'm not representing LDS apologists. I'm not representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day

Saints. That is... That is my position. You should... I feel like you should ask me that and then rather tell me that.

Ask you what? Sorry. That my... That what I'm doing concerning previous Latter -day Saint prophets that I disagreed.

Yeah, I... Are you telling me I have some sort of irreverence to them? They are... In the LDS apologetic community, absolutely.

Yeah, but I'm not part of that community. But I feel like... Why is there a need to... For example, when Blake Osler, correct to my memory, forgive me if I'm wrong.

When Blake Osler corrected Neal L. Maxwell. Or when Latter -day Saint... Okay, so if you had some... Sorry, I'm trying not to cut you off.

I just... I feel like you're... You're fine. ...being consistent. Like, if someone... If your pastor were incorrect, would you want to shout out for them?

In front of the whole crowd? Or try to take them aside? Depends on the severity of the air. Yeah. If he said Jesus was not

Lord or had not resurrected from the dead. Or that God was perhaps a sinful mortal. I can agree with that too. Part of sustaining leaders is to...

If you disagree with them, not... I mean, Jesus has this thing, right? In the gospels to take people first and settle things privately, right?

It just depends on the severity of the air. Like when Paul called Peter to account in the book of Galatians. Sure, about like discriminating...

Yeah. With not living out... Not living in step with the gospel and its implications for the social unity of the church. Yeah, following the revelation you just received.

It's like... I know what you're saying. Yeah. I'm not trying to... So he calls him out publicly. Yeah. And I think you'd agree in principle that there are some occasions where if it's serious enough...

So here's an example. When Bruce M. McConkie wrote in his Mormon Doctrine that the Catholic Church was the great and abominable church, was he corrected privately or publicly by the other apostles of the church?

Well, it was a public statement. It should have been public. I don't know the answer. Well, it was public. Okay. It was a public correction.

I mean, that would be principled. And I'll hold you to this.

When Latter -day Saint prophets have publicly taught something in an authoritative fashion from the general conference pulpit to the influence of hundreds of thousands of people, and then the church later decides to reverse the position or to contrast that position, there should be a kind of matching public rebuke or repudiation or a correction.

It should not be a kind of waving of the hand, sort of glide or slide into the next generation and hope that we don't talk about that.

You know what I'm saying? It's like, don't sweep it under the rug. I don't know. No, I don't understand. Adam God would be a really good example where...

So you're suggesting that you know what is the good for the church and what the church should do. It's unethical not to...

Like you just touched on earlier, it's principled to publicly correct public error that's of severe nature and is of widespread influence.

Okay, so is there... Okay, I guess then I don't know. I could be totally wrong. Is there a time where that did not happen?

Adam God, absolutely. There was no denunciation of Adam God by... Well, there wasn't even an admission that he actually taught it.

There was a kind of transition into a season in LDS history where there was a kind of, well, we don't know exactly what he meant by that or...

Who is he? Who is he here? Forgive me, I'm guesstimating here, but Joseph F. Smith.

When he was getting letters from LDS members about Adam God, there was a transitional season in LDS history where sort of the narrative changes.

Yeah, so is it possible that that prophet just didn't know? I'm not positive. Man, it's possible, but it was pretty clear that he taught it and there was members that still believed it.

Okay, so that's why I asked you if it was a quote about Joseph Smith Jr. teaching that or is it a quote about Brigham Young teaching?

Adam God? Yeah. Brigham, of course. Okay, yeah, so maybe... What's the difference in this case?

The difference is Brigham Young said that Joseph Smith taught it, but we don't really have any indication of that and Brigham Young actually did teach it.

We don't have any record of Joseph Smith teaching it. That's the difference. Sure. Craig, good to see you, man. Godspeed. Yeah, I'm not sure what the minutiae here is getting at.

Brigham Young taught it multiple times. I'll give you more information on that.

It was taught in the LDS endowment, very known. St. George. And I thought it was all the temples at that time, but I could be wrong.

I'm only aware of it being at the St. George lecture at the Vale. I'm not questioning that. I'm asking you about your insight on Joseph F.

Smith. Joseph F. Smith, whichever one, about how they didn't know whether or not... Well, we don't know if Brigham Young taught it or not.

There wasn't a public... He taught it and he was wrong. That came way later. In fact...

But it still came. What are you talking about? When? I don't know. I don't know when it came, but it did.

Maybe we can revisit this. I'll just tell you my understanding. The significance of Bruce McConkie's private letter to Eugene England where he admits, he concedes that Brigham Young taught things like Adam -God and he was wrong, right?

The significance of... I think it was Azartaf Benson saying that Adam -God was a false doctrine. The significance was that you really didn't have strong representative statements from LDS leaders publicly saying, yes, he did teach it and it was wrong.

It was false teaching. We ought not have believed it. He ought not have taught that. We do have that. When? I'm happy to be wrong here.

At least Bruce McConkie. That was private. That was a private letter to Eugene England that was leaked. Okay. I can remember specific, very specific

BYU devotionals that I listened to Bruce McConkie where he explicitly goes over this doctrine and teaches how it's false. He never publicly concedes that Brigham Young taught it.

That I know about. I'll say that provisionally. I'm not aware of anywhere where he publicly states that Brigham Young taught it and he's wrong.

Okay. That could be true. I have no idea. We can shelve it and return back to it. But we can zoom out to the principle.

Maybe we can have a little bit of common ground here. When there's private error in human relationships in the community, you try to start with private correction.

Matthew 18, right? The more public a teaching is, the more authoritative of a position someone's in.

And I would say the more categorically associated with prophet or apostle they're in and the more influential that is, the more it calls for a public renunciation, a public rebuke, a public correction.

And I would say that the LDS Church has a... Why do you have that? It has a habit of sort of...

It has a habit of kind of shifting and sort of generationally making changes without having a kind of concrete, we taught this, we were wrong, we repent.

It was a false teaching. Our leaders should not have said that from general conference. They should not have been in the endowment. Yeah, I don't...

We don't have to follow your criteria of how to and how not to retract or...

I don't think it's ultimately my criteria. I think it's just ethical. I don't... That's your subjective opinion of how it's ethical.

I don't have the same understanding as you. What is your understanding? How should Adam God have been corrected? I don't...

I'm not... I don't see any accounts of those men however they want. I don't... In your opinion, how should

Adam God have been corrected? I have no idea. I have no experience with that. I don't have an opinion on it.

It's not my job. I don't... But it's not your job either though. I can call you guys out on it.

Sure, you can... I mean, you can say whatever you want. I mean, this doesn't mean that your words are going to be taken seriously or that...

Yeah, maybe not by the LDS apologetic community but, you know, it matters. There's a baseline expectation that when someone claims to be a prophet or an apostle that they teach what is true publicly about God and the gospel.

Yeah, you have that false expectation of words in the Bible which you don't even believe because that is explicitly...

There are several cases where that's not what happens in the Bible and that is your... Not your like your ultimate rule of faith, right?

Would you say that? Bible's like ultimate rule of faith. That's your ultimate rule of faith and that's not what the

Bible teaches. Let's use this as an example. Let's say there's an LDS apologist who gives what he thinks is an example of a false prophecy by an

Old Testament prophet. One of the questions I'm going to have is, is he giving me his private opinion about whether that's a false prophecy or is he speaking in unity with LDS prophets and apostles on whether that's a false prophecy?

So is this cowboy apologetics or is this done in community with your own prophets and apostles?

What? If a pastor is giving you a sermon at your church and every time he reads a scripture are you going to be like, is this his opinion or is this like the consensus of the church?

I think what you're exposing here is that Latter -day

Saints look to their prophets and apostles in a similar way that we look to pastors. But the difference here is that prophets and apostles should be held to a magnitude of higher expectations than mere pastors or teachers.

I do. Right, so when your prophets and apostles speak to an issue it is of an order of magnitude more important than when a mere pastor speaks to it.

That's what I believe, sure. In principle I believe that too. When a prophet or an apostle speaks to an issue,

I should not be dismissive of it. I've never been dismissive of anything except for the things explicitly caught against by later

Latter -day Saints. Apostles and prophets. So if the LDS apologetics community really gets excited about positing that Old Testament prophets have given false prophecies...

I didn't learn that from them. Well, what I'm asking here is, are you speaking in unity with your own religious prophetic tradition?

Can you find where your own prophets and apostles agree with you about this particular prophecy?

Or are y 'all innovating in a way that can just be overturned in 20 years? Because there's that kind of instability.

You're still not getting it. You're still not getting it. When my prophets and apostles tell us that there are errors in the scriptures and we find an error, whether or not they've ever spoken on that error doesn't make it not an error.

I don't understand this criteria here. I'll give you an example. If someone such as yourself says, oh, this

Old Testament prophet taught a false prophecy. But when your prophets speak to that, they don't consider it as a false prophecy.

They've never given any... Talk about that. Take this hypothetical. If you were to find something that you think is a false prophecy, but when your leaders have spoken to it, they don't think it's a false prophecy.

What do you do? That hasn't... But if it happened, what would you do? Would it have any bearing on you that your own prophets and apostles have read that same scripture differently than you?

No, you're assuming that there's another reading of that scripture. You're assuming that. Does the interpretation of scripture by your prophets and apostles matter to you?

Yes, yes. Okay, so if you believe that it says one thing, but your prophets and apostles have interpreted it to mean something else, does that have any bearing on you?

Yes. Okay. Yes. Good. Yeah. I can give an example. Ezekiel 37 has been interpreted by...

to this day is in the Preach My Gospel manual, suggesting that the prophecy about those two nations gathering is about the

Book of Mormon and the Bible together. Okay? When I read that, and I'm taking my

LDS presuppositions out of it, I see it as about the two nations of Israel and a restoration of the nations of Israel going back into being one instead of Judah and Israel together, right?

Both and or either or for you. So that's where I was getting at. Why can't it be both?

Why can't I agree and respect and fear the interpretations of my

Latter -day Saint apostles and also say that this is about the nations of Israel?

Why can't I have my take and eat it too? It's harder to do when the interpretations are contradictory.

So is the interpretation of King David being called

God, even your God has accepted you or has given you a scepter of righteousness in your hand, is that interpretation contradictory?

Okay, so then I wouldn't go that route either. Again, with Matthew... Your leaders, when they interpret something a certain way, it has some sort of authoritative bearing in your life.

It matters to you. It's weighty, right? Yes. That's the modest point here is that when Latter -day Saints make a point or when they take a position of interpreting

Scripture, it should be done in concert with as much as possible with your own prophets and apostles. Not with indifferent irreverence to, but in concert with as much as possible what your own leaders have taught.

There's a little website, I forgot what it was called, where it has the Scripture, every Scripture reference ever in general conference.

Scriptures .byu .edu, I think so, yeah. It's a great website, yeah. Yeah, it's a great example, yeah.

I haven't visited that. Good to see you, man. Take care. I would, that's a great point.

Yes, yes, yes, do that. Yeah, I haven't found an issue with that. Yes, great example, yes.

I would massively encourage my LDS apologist frenemies to use that website and to incorporate it into your presentations.

If you guys are taking a position, speak in unity with your own prophets and apostles. If you're taking a position that is not, that is a contradistinction to your prophets and apostles, conceivably, at least make note of it.

We are making a, we are taking. I do, I do make note. Well, we are taking a position that has not been shared by the predominant reading of this text by our own prophets and apostles, or we are, we are giving this position in concert with our prophets and apostles.

That was true for the DNA in the Book of Mormon. That was true then. That explains, sorry, that you mentioned earlier.

Yeah, people who are not prophets and apostles had a differing opinion who didn't go out and proclaim that the prophets and apostles are wrong, but rather went to them.

And those prophets and apostles changed the introduction to the Book of Mormon. Okay. I mean, like,

I feel like that's totally fair. Well, there's a, there's a degree of gaslighting that goes on, though, when you have a decade go on, and it's like, there's a kind of quiet, hush, hush, open secret.

Yeah, our leaders totally botched this, but we're not. What are you talking about? Joseph Smith thought that the Book of Mormon took place in North America.

Plenty of Latter -day Saints believe that today. I don't, that he, Joseph Smith, as the translator of the

Book of Mormon, botched where he thought the location of the Book of Mormon took place. I don't, like, what's, I don't have any issue with that.

You thought, you think Joseph Smith botched the location of the Book of Mormon? You just did.

I know I just did, because you used it. Okay, so maybe you'd put it more modestly, but do you think Joseph Smith got the geography of the Book of Mormon right?

No, I don't. I think he got it wrong. Okay, well, I appreciate that, that clarity, that overheardness.

Yeah, all Latter -day Saints who believe the Book of Mormon took place in Central America also agree with that. Okay, yeah,

I guess what I'm pushing for is clarity. When LDS apologetic positions are presented, there should be...

So you want all LDS apologists to agree exactly on the same thing? What I'm, my point's more modest, is that it should be done conscious of what the historic

Latter -day Saint prophetic tradition has taught. And you don't feel like it is. Oh, I think there's a lot of gaslighting that goes on. Yeah.

I don't think that's true. Hey, is this Brigham? Yeah, yeah. Nice to meet you, bro. Nice to meet you.

What's your name? Brigham. Aaron. Nice to meet you, Aaron. We were wrapping up, we were gonna go get ice cream.

Do you want some? I'm okay. Okay. Yeah. I'll take chocolate chip.

You're funny. Hey, come with us. I'll give you a real clear example.

We can wrap it up soon. The Miracle of Forgiveness by Spencer Kimball. There was what's called a

Neo -Orthodoxy movement. There's a book by Kendall White where he talks about Mormon Neo -Orthodoxy and how there's just different streams of LDS thought about what the nature of God is like, what grace is.

And there were a number of LDS teachers, classically Stephen E. Robinson, who wrote Believing in Christ, and Robert Millett, who wrote a number of books.

And arguably, they were trying to undo and contradict what damage the

Miracle of Forgiveness had done in its teaching. Call it quasi -perfectionism. It taught a standard of what it takes to be forgiven, the kind of prerequisite repentance that it takes to then be forgiven.

And the Neo -Orthodoxy movement, especially BYU, they were trying to really soften not just the rhetoric, but the teachings of what it took to be forgiven.

So they were using much softer metaphors, like the bicycle analogy and whatnot. Or a modern expression of this would be

Brad Wilcox. Have you heard of that? Is Grace Insufficient? Right. So a lot of that is in contradistinction to what

Latter -day Saints were teaching. From a really clear example of this for me is 2

Nephi 25 -23. After all we can do. We were saved by grace. After all we can do.

Right? And there's a really good case to be made that that originally that probably means something like notwithstanding all that we can do or...

Yeah, yeah. Just I know not trying to... Any sort of way. Okay. Do you know the first time it was used as a actual after all you can do in like today's language?

Do you know the first time it was used that way? Late 1950s. Late, way later. I think it was way later than that.

No, I've done a... I've done... I could be totally wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was 1890s.

Oh, way earlier. 1980s? No, no, 1890s. Like way later.

Did you say 1950? I think you said 1850. I'll clarify my point. The idea that after all we can do means satisfying prerequisite conditions which merit forgiveness.

Sort of maxing out on all the capacities that God's given you to obey and then you're forgiven.

That sort of reading of the after all we can do phraseology started as far as I can tell in the late 1950s.

It really peaked and then it waned in the 1990s. And you still have occurrences of that.

But the big idea here though is that there was a whole generation or two of people who were taught that we only receive certain kinds of grace after all we can do by that interpretation of the phrase.

And then there was a kind of switch where it was like, well, after all we can do actually means not withstanding all that we can do or in spite of all

Yeah, so scholarship gets better and we understand the verse differently. I don't have an issue with that. But even so, even to that point,

I don't necessarily disagree with that other interpretation of 2 Nephi because I have

Matthew Bates understanding of what it means to have faith, what it means to receive grace, which isn't exactly at odds with that either.

Well, I mean, the the modern Latter -day Saint construal of after all we can do is not shifting.

It depends on who you talk to. But like the BYU academics today don't read it the way that LDS prophets and apostles read it roughly from the 50s to the 90s, more or less.

There was a switch. There was a there was a transition. And my point is, is that it seems most ethical to say, oh, our leaders, not our culture got it wrong or just our people got it wrong.

Our leaders got it wrong. They publicly misinterpreted, mistaught this passage from the

General Conference pulpit, an institute from LDS manuals that were given to teenagers, children.

It was inculcated in the culture top down. And it was a false teaching.

It was wrong. And now we're correcting that. Now, our BYU professors largely are correct.

The way I put this cheekily is we think the God for BYU professors to correct the false teachings of LDS prophets and apostles.

Yeah, I don't have that understanding. I find that you are are suggesting that BYU professors can see more than Latter -day

Saint prophets and apostles. They think that sometimes. Yeah. You're missing the point where the

Latter -day Saint prophets and apostles are theologians. They interpret scripture publicly for the church.

So they're not theologians. They're not philosophers. They're not really studying those arts unless their field specifically before their calling was in those arts.

Maybe like a little bit like Jeffrey R. Holland. And so when the church has people who write books for Deseret, for scholars like that, it is explicitly their job to go into the to do things like the

Joseph Smith Papers project and to interpret history and have a more accurate representation of history.

That is explicitly not the prophets and apostles job. It's just explicitly not. To interpret scripture.

That's not what I said. I said to go into the Joseph Smith Papers and interpret history and see who taught what when and all this stuff.

That's explicitly not their job. That's not what they're claiming to do. How are you linking that with stuff like 2

Nephi 25 -23? Because it's not their job to study the English language enough to understand that the word after and that in the way that it was used at that time when the

Book of Mormon was translated could have meant despite it is it is their job to proclaim the doctrine of the church.

That is that is their job. Right. So as they're doing that, they're interpreting scripture. Yeah. So when they get up before millions of people in the general conference pulpit and they interpret a passage like 2

Nephi 25 -23, after all we can do, they have a responsibility. I hope you'd agree to the responsible interpretation and responsible exegesis at some basic level before before they get up as a possible exegesis.

No, that's not at all like Matthew was doing. No. What are you talking about? Responsible LDS prophets and apostles have a responsibility to responsibly exegete

LDS canon from the pulpit of general conference. I would I would say no, why they have no

I don't think I have any training in exegesis. Why would I expect them to give perfect exegesis when they use

LDS scriptures to teach sermons? Should Latter -day Saints be able to trust

Latter -day Saint prophets and apostles to publicly interpret scripture over the church?

Yes. Do you trust the LDS prophets and apostles from the 1950s to the 1990s to interpret 2

Nephi 25 -23? I do trust them and respect their interpretations. Okay. 100%. And would respect them so much to claim that they're even inspired.

Okay. So when they when they interpreted and maybe this is difficult because you haven't necessarily taken the position that they were wrong, right?

I don't put that on you. About after all we can do. Yeah, I don't I don't

I think that I can talk about that if you want. It's going to be another monologue. Maybe you can tell me what you're saying. I can if you want.

About what it means? About what you tell me that I think that they're wrong or not wrong. Are they wrong?

Were they wrong in how they interpreted that passage? I don't necessarily think so. No. Okay. Yeah.

I talk about this. Let's talk about that in a future date. I think you would circle around on that differently because the way

LDS academics have spoken to that passage seems to be pretty clearly against some of the dominant readings of that passage from the 1950s to the 1990s.

Okay. Yeah. I don't I think you should read some from Fresno or BYU, Idaho. That'd be one you

I think would probably disagree. I think. He would he would he would agree more with the historic

LDS interpretate the 1950s. Not because of what they said, but ultimately I think so.

Yes. Okay. And I don't I don't want to I'm not associated with him. I don't want to just throw his name around. What's his name again?

Brent Schmidt. Brent Schmidt. Brent like. Brent. Yeah. Schmidt. Schmidt.

Brent Schmidt. And he's he's a he's a professor. Yeah, but to my understanding, I haven't finished the book yet, but it's kind of redefining grace, kind of like Matthew Bates does with more from a

Latter -day Saint perspective. And I think that the after all you can do the 1950s, the 1990s interpretation is able to fit in that paradigm.

Maybe he disagrees. I didn't come across his breakdown of that verse yet, but I don't

I don't just like I believe that there are things that one needs to do in order for grace to be sufficient.

That's this is agrees with you. I don't have this the same Brad Wilcox understanding.

I just don't have that. Okay. I appreciate that. I appreciate the clarity. Yeah. Yeah. I think some people present the

Brad Wilcox view sort of the true view of the church. I don't I don't I don't have a problem with that.

I don't have problems. Well, I mean, what I would hope for is clarity on the fact that there's at least a variety of LDS positions.

And if one's going to take the Brad Wilcox, say, reading of second, he 525 23. That's not.

Yeah. Anyway, or his framework of grace. Okay. If one's going to take his framework on grace and what it takes to the celestial kingdom or what it takes to be exalted.

Well, if one's going to to take his framework for grace, I would at least hold my letter.

He's saying friends and frenemies could be overt about where they agree with their own leaders and where they they're taking issue with their historic teachings of their leaders.

We do that all the time. What are you talking about? We do that constantly. I had a missionary tell me the other day that like if you recited some something that wasn't doctrine, some opinion about the church, he's like,

I call that Bruce doctrine because everything Bruce said is his own opinion. That's like, that's

I don't think that you're going to find every Latter -day Saint saying that. But to me, that showed me that's exactly the opposite of what you're saying.

I'll give you an example. The notion of whether Heavenly Father was a sinful mortal. There are a variety of positions on whether there's a

Heavenly Grandfather, whether God has always been God prior to the incarnation, whether he had to progress to become a

God, and whether he was perhaps a sinful mortal prior to becoming a God. And I find similar things throughout the disparate

Christianities. Well, to this point, in the Latter -day Saint tradition, there's a variety of positions there.

So when someone takes a position on whether Heavenly Father was a sinful mortal, perhaps, at least,

I think it at least should be presented with sort of an overt awareness that this is a position.

I'll give you a really clear example. On the fair, forgive me, what's the new name for it?

Fair Latter -day Saints? You know what fair is? I know what fair is, yeah. I don't know what it's called. I don't like the actual.

Yeah, it used to be fair Mormon. I think it's now fair. Fair LDS, maybe. Yeah, it used to be fair LDS. I think it.

I have no idea. I actually don't. Forgive me, I forget the new name. That's okay. We both know who we're talking about.

Yeah, yeah. If you were to look on their wiki, they have a page dedicated to the question, answering the question, you know, this issue of whether Heavenly Father was perhaps a sinful mortal prior to becoming a deity.

And they do a really good job of saying our church really doesn't have a position on this.

There's no single position. Yeah, so you can't fault me for having a disagreeing opinion than everyone else you've ever heard in the streets of, you know,

Double Square. I don't, that would be, that would kind of help my case out, I think. What I'm saying is that that article is really overt about the fact that there's a variety of positions that are explained in different ways.

And I would prefer that the Latter -day Saint community just be honest like that. That's, now contrast that with people who come out and say it is the position of the church.

The Heavenly Father never was a sinner. I have never said that. I'm not saying you said that, but there are Latter -day

Saints that talk that way. I don't think that's honest. That's fine. I mean, that goes back to the conversation we had where that one evangelical

I met in Cache Valley was telling me that because Jesus Christ is the firstborn,

God created Jesus so that he was, at some point, didn't exist. So if someone said, those

Latter -day Saints who believe Heavenly Father might have been a sinful mortal, they're just ignorant. The true position is the

Heavenly Father never was a sinful mortal. No, I don't even believe that. But you're telling me that Latter -day Saints, that you're going to hold to Latter -day

Saints an opinion of people you've met and not recognize that there are actually differing opinions? Because there's actually a differing opinion to Jesus Christ being a created being, right?

But I'm not going to hold you to Jesus Christ being a created being because they heard someone else say that. There's no official

LDS institutional position on whether Heavenly Father was a sinful mortal prior to his exaltation. Yeah, what's wrong with that?

Well, there's a theological problem with that, but I think the more modest point I'm making is that when Latter -day

Saints in the LDS apologetics community present the position that he never was a sinner as the position of the church...

I don't know of anyone that's done that. Okay. I'd ask around. I would ask... I would invite you to have a discussion with Robert Boylan and Travis Anderson on the issue whether Heavenly Father was a sinful mortal.

And I would encourage all three of you to be upfront about the fact that your church has no official position on whether Heavenly Father was a sinful mortal prior to exaltation.

Why would we need to do that? Ask them what they think. Yeah, see how they've dealt with the issue.

Okay, I first learned that there even was a

Latter -day Saint position that God had a God who had a God who had a God from Robert Boylan's podcast. I know their position on that.

That's a pretty dominant position in Latter -day Saint history. Yeah. I know. I know that.

I learned that from Robert Boylan's podcast. Is it Boylan or Boylan? I've heard it called both.

Okay. I've heard him say Boylan. It might be his accent. Well, I have Shufflewall, so I can't complain about pronunciations.

I can't even pronounce that if I try. Yeah, yeah. I shouldn't be persnickety about... I have all people about last name pronunciations.

Well, I mean, there's a kind of gaslighting that goes on to the evangelical community when certain

Latter -day Saint... Just so... Explain it to me like I'm stupid. Just how are you using gaslighting in that context?

It's kind of like pretending that it's always been the case that we've had this particular position. That it's always been the position of the church.

The Heavenly Father has always been God and that he's never been a sinful mortal. I can agree that maybe the way that they phrase it is saying that there's...

It's not possible to interpret the King Father discourse otherwise. Maybe I'll give you that. I don't think they're making that claim the way you just said, though.

I just don't... I don't... From me listening to... Specifically Blake Ostler on Robert Bollin's podcast,

I don't think that was the position. I appreciate when someone takes Blake Ostler's position of how to read the King Father discourse from the

Sermon on the Grove and then... I don't fully agree with that. Sure, sure. But when someone takes the Ostler's... I call it the

Ostlerian position. And they say, well, God's always been God except for his incarnational segment of time.

But prior to his incarnation, he was always God and he never was a sinner. When people take that position and they say, but we recognize that...

Sorry, I should package that. And they say there's no Heavenly Grandfather. Right? That's not Blake Ostler's view.

But there's no Heavenly Grandfather? Yeah, Blake Ostler's view is, as far as I know, is that the Sermon on the Grove can teach that there is a

Heavenly Grandfather. Not that he believes that. I don't think he believes in spirit birth. That's not what I said.

That's not... He said... Help me out. Yeah, so to my knowledge and remembrance of those dialogues,

Blake Ostler thinks it's possible that the Sermon on the Grove can teach that there's a Heavenly Grandfather. But he doesn't hold that view.

He thinks it's possible to get that interpretation out of... My understanding is that he reads it as not teaching that.

I'm pretty sure he reads it as it can teach that. Okay. Well, can we revisit that together? Sure. I don't know.

I mean, there's like, I don't know. Yeah. So a dozen podcasts I had to listen to to find that.

To the earlier point, if someone's going to take the position that there's no Heavenly Grandfather, fine.

But at least be honest and open about the fact that that's been a very common teaching by LDS prophets and apostles.

That they believe that? Sure. That there's an ancestry of deities prior to Heavenly Father.

I agree that Latter -day Saints believe that. And I'm sure... Many, not all. Yeah, many Latter -day

Saints believe that Heavenly Father progressed to be Heavenly Father and that he himself has a spirit father above himself.

Who this was above himself. Is that fair? Yeah, I haven't said otherwise.

All right. I'm not being dishonest. Dustin, I know you're out here to do... What was the DNC segment you were at? 71.

Yeah, do it. Okay. Do it. When you talked to me today, you greeted me like my favorite polytheist.

Yes, it's being cheeky. I know. I just was like, you talked to me a lot about being kind.

You think that that was kind? I think it was jovial but serious. I think a lot of the things

I do are jovial. Well, if you were offended by that... I wasn't offended by that.

I just wanted to hold you to the standards you're trying to hold me to. Well, I do think you're... I just don't want you to be a hypocrite. Well, I do think you are a polytheist.

Okay, that's fine. I don't... I think that if your God were to exist, I would want to go to hell.