Transcription
We don't believe in an ontological difference between the father and humanity, and it may probably arise through the slave question. Bro, it might probably become because of it. Like, bro, you actually have like some sort of like direct prophecy where he says, "Not good."
"What's going to happen?" Uh, Alec the Mormon. Hello.
"Hey, how's it going?"
"Good. What's going on? Um, I just, I've always wanted to discuss the Trinity with someone. So, that's pretty cool."
"Sure, man. What's up? What you got?"
"So, I, my main thing is, I was a Trinitarian for a long time, and it kind of robbed me of knowing what God even was. Like, I really tried to understand like how, how the Trinity even worked, and I was just confused the whole time. And whenever I would ask someone else like what the Trinity was, they would give me like some diagram, or they would say something else, but it would end up contradicting scripture, which was always strange to me. Like, for example, you said that, um, it's three persons, one being, right?"
"Mhm."
"And they tried to define being, and it was, um, I didn't really catch it, 'cause when I..."
"Define being as something sentient."
"Yeah."
"Something sentient, right? So you would say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost have the same sentience."
"I don't define being that way. I think being is classically defined to just mean existence, something that exists in reality."
"That, that can think, supposedly."
"Not even, not even a rock is considered a being. It doesn't think. A being is just literally anything that exists."
"Okay. But can a, a rock can't think, right?"
"Right."
"But the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, they can think. We can, we can establish that, right?"
"Yeah."
"So, if, me personally, even if you don't agree, that's how I personally would view a being, because a being is conscious. It has consciousness, right?"
"I mean, that's fine. You can view it that way. I'm just saying that's not how being is classically defined."
"That's okay. That's just how, that's just, I'm just trying to build a bridge of understanding here. That's where I'm going to come from."
"So you have the, um, the Son in the garden where he says, 'Not my will, but thine be done.' How can you say 'not my will, but my will be done' when of the same being?"
"Because since he has two natures according to the hypostatic union, he's referring to the, uh, he's referring to the human nature and the will of the human nature submitting to the will of the divine nature."
"And where did Christ say he had two natures in the Bible? It's it's not..."
"Where it says the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily."
"But that doesn't say 'I have a human and a divine nature.'"
"We know he has a human nature because he was a human. Now, what does it mean for the Godhead to dwell on him fully?"
"That he's divine."
"Oh, okay. So, he's divine. So, he has both a divine and a human nature. There you go."
"But it doesn't say that in the scriptures. You're saying that because he has divine nature, then he must have something that's not, because in..."
"Does he, does Jesus not have a human nature?"
"Oh, he did."
"Okay. So, and you also said he's divine. So, he also had a divine nature."
"So, you're, you're making an ontological distinction there. When Christ said, 'God is our Father.' I, I believe that very plainly because remember, I'm a Latter-day Saint. We believe that, you know, are you familiar with, um, John 10:34 by chance? You probably not off the top of your head, right?"
"So, you read it, I probably would be."
"Do you want me to reference it for you?"
"Real if it's relevance to the conversation. Sure."
"Yes. 'Cause we don't believe in an ontological difference between the Father and humanity. And..."
"Father and humanity."
"Uh-huh. Because he's our Father."
"You think the Father is eternally a human?"
"And Christ even here, I'll show you. This is where we kind of get it from here. And this is biblical. And the, the..."
"Neoplatonism? That Father is eternally human. Is that what you're saying?"
"Yeah. Because he's, he's our Father."
"All right. Show me that."
"So, but the Neoplatonism of the third, fourth century tried to scramble that up and say, 'No, God's not a person, Father. He's some essence.' And yet the Bible never says, 'I'm an essence.' That, what that is derived from, of course, is Jesus saying, 'The Father and I are one.' And yet that's not defined as an essence in the scripture, but they did the best that they absolutely could to understand, you know, how the Father and the Son were one, and they came to the conclusion it must be some sort of essence that connects them, is what I'm understanding."
"So you got the verse where it says the Father is human?"
"Pardon me?"
"Oh, well."
"Like it won't, no, I'll say that it kind of helps understand that because..."
"This is John 10, chapter 10, and you have 33. It says, 'The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.' So it's kind of like this same, it's the same conversation we're having here, a little bit, but not. And in 34, Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your law, I said, ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the son of God?'"
"How does that show the Father is eternally human at all?"
"He said, 'Ye are gods.' Ye are gods."
"Yeah, that's Elohim though, or Theos in the Greek, but it'd be Elohim in the Hebrew. It just refers to kings and rulers though. It's not necessarily any set of, it has nothing to do with like what you are at all. It just has to do with whether you're king or ruler."
"If that were the case, then every time Elohim came up, I could translate it as mortal judges only, only."
"Well, no. It's not necessarily immortal or immortal. It's not either way. Well, where is that? Because God calls himself Elohim, and he's not mortal."
"Exactly. Exactly. That's my point. That's why I'm saying Elohim can be in reference to either a mortal or an immortal. It doesn't necessarily, it's not one or the other."
"So in Genesis when God calls himself Elohim?"
"Yeah."
"He's not calling himself neither mortal nor immortal. Because Elohim doesn't tell you whether or not someone's mortal or immortal. It just tells you that they're a king or ruler. That's all it's saying."
"God calls himself Elohim, though."
"What does it have to do with anything? It's one of his name titles."
"Well, what does that have to do with what I just said?"
"So, you're saying it means only ruler, is what you're saying?"
"It, it means like a king or a ruler, a judge, etc."
"I haven't seen it translated as king, judge, or ruler in anything else except for Psalm 82, which is where Christ..."
"I'm not saying it's translated as that. I'm saying that's what it means."
"Not translated, because the translation doesn't work because it's directly derived as God's."
"Yeah. I'm not saying it's, I'm saying what does it mean though? What is the word there? What does Elohim like mean? Like, what is, define it. Like, I know it translates to God. I'm saying, what does it mean though?"
"Well, yeah, directly translated means 'the gods.' It can also mean 'divine counsel.'"
"What does it mean to be a god though? What does it mean?"
"So, we, we literally, Latter-day Saints, we believe that God is actually our Father, as Christ taught. That he's an exalted man. And Christ was also a divine and exalted man. We take it literally. We believe..."
"That's fine. But I'm saying, what does it mean to be an Elohim? What does that word mean?"
"Not what it translates to. What does it mean?"
"An exalted person. A divine person. Because Christ said in the Sermon on the Mount, 'Be therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.' If you are as perfect as God, you are divine."
"Okay. So all it means is someone that's exalted, right?"
"Which means divine."
"Okay. So how does that verse then show that the Father is eternally a human?"
"Because Christ said, 'Ye are gods,' to humans. He said to their faces, 'Ye are gods.'"
"But you just said though, that Elohim all it means is exalted one. It doesn't necessarily mean a human, immortal, immortal. Doesn't necessarily mean any of those things. So how does it prove that he's a human?"
"Christ told people, humans, 'Ye are gods.' That word is referred to God. He calls himself that too."
"Brother, I can, like, I can call my dog, like, I don't know. I can call, like, my dog, like, my, my son, quote unquote. And then I can also call my son, my son. It doesn't mean that they are the same nature though, because I'm calling them the same thing. So just because God is called Elohim and humans are called Elohim doesn't mean that they're both humans."
"Okay, then I'll give you another one. But this one, you, you'll probably interpret too. Because Christ said, remember the, um, the apostles were talking to Jesus, and he, and they told him, 'Look, show us the Father, and we'll be satisfied, right?' But Jesus said, 'Have I been so long with you, and you haven't known me? Philip, he said, He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.' Because God's a man, you see Christ, you see the Father. He said that as a man. He didn't say, he didn't say, 'Look at like this energy.' He didn't say, 'Look at nature and look how beautiful and perfect, that's the Father.' He didn't say, 'It's being itself.' Because again, that's Neoplatonism, a third, fourth century, which they derived into the Nicene..."
"But that's because he's the image of him."
"So God has an image?"
"Yes."
"Again, a man. We have a nose, a mouth. He walked in the garden. If God's just an essence..."
"Where do you get it from? That's the Father though, that's walking in the garden, not the Son."
"It doesn't say that."
"Oh. So, okay, that's my point. So how do you know it's the Father? That's one. Like, there's no, there's no evidence for that."
"No, you're totally right. You're absolutely correct that it doesn't, it doesn't directly define that. And it's something that we, from reading the text alone, you can't really. They did the, like I said, the people who did the Nicene Creed and the councils, I think they did the absolutely best that they could. But without prophets, without direct revelation, you know, things get mixed up. Because Jesus said, 'The Father and I are one.' How do, how do we define that oneness, right? If you go into John chapter 17, Christ even says, 'That they may be one,' talking to his disciples, 'said that they may be one, even as I am one with the Father. Father in me, and I in them, that they may be one in us.' He says it directly that way. If you mean to be on that..."
"Too. What does it mean to be one with someone?"
"That's the thing. Like, he didn't describe like the exact, like nature of it. Otherwise, this Trinity, it wouldn't be such a big issue. But he did describe that his disciples, who are separate persons, separate beings, right? That they could be one with him and the Father, even as he is one with the Father."
"So that's fine. But I'm saying, where do you get that has anything to do with nature?"
"What do you mean, nature? Like the divine nature?"
"Just the Father having a human nature. Like, how does that show that then the Father has a human nature?"
"I think that all those verses together help show that. The fact that Christ says he's our Father. The fact that God made us in his image. The fact that Christ said to be perfect, even as he is perfect. The fact in Revelation, it says in Revelation 3, I think it's 7:21 or 21:7. Oh, well, it says, 'He that overcometh shall sit in my throne, even as I overcame and sat down in my Father's throne.' We're going to sit on God's throne. And then he said in, I think this one is 21:7, where it says, 'He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.' Now, the Nicene Creed, the Trinity, popular Christianity, they, they teach directly against these verses. And I think it's really sad because when I read those, I read through the Bible completely, I became an atheist because I'm like, 'Look at all these contradictions. Holy crap. Everyone, they don't even know what they're talking about.'"
"So, has the Father ever manifested himself in flesh?"
"Yes."
"Where?"
"Uh, so Joseph Smith, when he had the visitation of the Father and the Son to him, the first time. You, you can blink, but I, I know by the power of the Holy Ghost to me that it's true. And if I'm wrong at the last judgment, you can point at me and laugh."
"I don't want to do that, brother. I want you to be saved."
"Like..."
"Well..."
"Like what? Okay."
"How do you know what's wrong? How do you know what I just said was wrong?"
"Because it literally says in the Bible that Christ was the last one sent."
"So, how the freak is Joseph Smith after him? No, 'cause Agabus was a prophet after John the Baptist died, after Christ died, too."
"No, no, no. But that was still, that was still after Christ was already, or that was still before Christ was already ordained, though."
"Called Agabus a prophet after he died."
"I'm fine with that. But I'm saying though, that Agabus wouldn't have been after his ministry, so to speak, because Agabus was still alive when Jesus' ministry was there."
"So..."
"He was dead, but he wasn't, he was a resurrected being."
"No, I'm saying when his, when Jesus' ministry, he wasn't dead when Jesus' ministry was there. Agabus was after Christ was crucified."
"Yeah, but I'm saying he, he still lived when Christ's ministry was there. So he wasn't after him in that sense."
"So there's still prophets today then, because Christ is still alive. Same logic."
"No, no, no. Christ, I'm saying alive in his ministry. He's not alive in his ministry. He's in heaven."
"But he was..."
"What do you think it means when it says Christ was the last one sent?"
"Where does it say that?"
"But the last of all, he sent his son, saying, 'They will have reverence to my son.' That was his parable where he was, he sent his son to the, um, the..."
"You agree though, this parable is about the Father and the Son, right?"
"Mhm. Then you have to accept those other verses that I referenced too."
"But I accept the verses you referenced. I'm asking, what does this mean? Why does he say 'last of all he sent his son'?"
"Mhm. But when the husbandmen saw them on the sun, they said, 'Let's kill the heir, and then we'll seize his inheritance,' right? They killed him, and then did the Father just leave it? He called other servants after that."
"No. No. But did he call, he didn't call other prophets after that, though."
"It says servants. We're..."
"Servants doesn't equal prophets."
"Servants."
"Prophets, servants."
"Okay. But we're servants too. Servant doesn't necessarily mean prophets. I'm asking, what does it mean when it says 'last of all I sent my son'?"
"It doesn't mean that it's last forever and that there's no more prophets forever. I don't know a single verse that says there's no more prophets."
"What does it mean? I'm asking when he says 'last of all I sent my son.' What does that mean?"
"I think that was like his way to try and get them to give him the vineyard without having to destroy them."
"Huh? Because it says after he sent his son, then Christ said, 'What, what should we do with these wicked husbandmen? They're to be destroyed, right? He went and they, they're supposed to be executed, and then that land is to be given to another people who will bring him the fruit of the vineyard.'"
"Okay. But what is he, what is he, what was he telling the truth when he said, 'Last of all, I sent my son.' Was that a true statement?"
"Of course he did. But it doesn't mean there's no more prophets."
"So what does it mean?"
"It means that last of all, he sent his son to try to get his, the fruit of his vineyard. We got to, you got to not ignore the fact that he called servants even after his son. Brother, I, I know I can, I can agree. He could have done it to try to get the vineyard, but it also means something. What does it actually mean, though? When he says 'last,' what does it actually mean?"
"So, I will admit that I don't know what it means by 'last of all.' If, if that's what you're trying to to build your whole point on is the 'last of all' portion. I will, I'll, I'll concede there that I don't know exactly what 'last of all.' "
"Yeah."
"But I don't see any verse that says there's no more prophets. So you could interpret that verse as meaning like, no more, no more Messiahs, because the last Messiah, he's the only Messiah."
"Well, that doesn't, you can't, that doesn't make sense to be the, because it'd have to be one before that. No Messiah."
"He'd be the first, he'd be the first and the last Messiah. But he calls himself the first and the last."
"So..."
"Yeah, obviously it's not going to be Messiah, 'cause he's the last of all sent. He sent other people before that."
"He sent people after, according to the scriptures, with Agabus."
"Yeah. I'm saying again though, Agabus was someone that was still alive during his ministry."
"But Christ was in heaven after he resurrected. So I, I don't really understand where he..."
"So he wouldn't have been in his ministry anymore."
"So when did his ministry end?"
"In 33 AD?"
"That's when he died."
"Yeah."
"And Agabus was called after he died?"
"Yeah. And his, I know I'm saying though that he was alive though while his ministry was still there."
"And..."
"That's why I'm saying he was still there. Whether or not when he was called. I'm saying he was still alive during that time, 'cause after that, the ministry was given to the church."
"It doesn't say that either."
"All right. So, what do you think it means when it says 'first,' uh, for example, I think it's in Timothy when it says that there are traditions outside the Bible we must hold to. If we were in like the first, second, third century, where would we find those traditions at?"
"From like the ones that came afterwards?"
"Yeah. Like it says, like there are traditions that are either by word or by epistle. Epistle is obviously meaning the Bible. But where are the traditions outside the Bible? Where would we find those if we existed in first, second, third century?"
"I'm, I'm sorry. Could you repeat? I, I talked over you. Sorry."
"It's okay. I was saying, so in like the first, second, and third century, there are traditions that are outside the Bible that Timothy talks about. Where are those at? Where could we find those if we're in the first, second, third century?"
"The opinions of men. Traditions and opinions of men."
"And it says we must hold to those, right?"
"Good. What now? I'm sorry, Dr."
"And it says we must hold to those, right? If they're from the Lord, if they're just people's opinions, their traditions..."
"How do we determine? Sorry, I talked over you now. I was just going to ask, what is it? How do we know which is which?"
"That's the point, right? 'Cause, um, in the scriptures also says there's traditions of men. Christ actually condemns the traditions of men, which Pharisees did. Like he said, 'You wash pots and you wash your hands and you say that's part of the law of Moses.' I didn't say that's in the law of Moses. That's the tradition of men, right? And how do we know?"
"That's what M. So, how do we know then which is which? If we were in the first, second, third century, how do we know which is which? In the first, second, third century, you said."
"Yeah."
"Well, I would, I believe that you'd have to do that by authoritative servants of the Lord, you know, prophets and apostles. And Christ said, 'By their fruits, you'll know them.' That's one way to know false true prophets."
"So, who would those people be in the first, second, third, fourth century?"
"Well, I believe that John the Revelator was still around until about 150 AD. After that, not too sure. So, I'd say after that, there were no prophets or apostles. The disciples of John..."
"The people who learned from him."
"Mhm."
"Well, yeah, but there are a whole bunch of false traditions that circulated like crazy. Even during Paul's day, he said, 'Why are you guys teaching that you should do this or that? We didn't teach you to do this. I'm going to rebuke this and I'm going to tell you how it's supposed to be done.' That's a lot of Paul's epistles is this..."
"I agree. But if the people there though, if the people existed, Ignatius, Polycarp, and they learned from John, but they're contradicting some of the teachings of any sort of there being any sort of like prophet after, how, how..."
"They said there's no more, right?"
"Yeah, I believe Chrysostom said that."
"Okay. And is, and how do we know if that's true? Like he said..."
"They would have learned from the disciples."
"So we take them at their word because they learned it from the disciples?"
"Yes. Apostolic succession. Except that Paul specifically says that the people who learned from him in Antioch, that they went astray. So people can go astray even if they learn from the disciples, is what I'm saying."
"Yeah. So I'm saying, how do we know then which epistles are outside the Bible, which, if it's not the ones of the people that learned, which ones do we take?"
"I'd say it's the ones that are confirmed by God to be true, which we have to have a someone who knows directly from the Lord, like, like in Moses. So, do you think we were able to do that for like 15, 16, 700 years until Joseph Smith?"
"Because they rejected all the prophets."
"Who?"
"The people. It says Paul, Paul was referencing it like, 'You guys are doing this. I never taught you this.' And..."
"Between the end of the Bible and and Joseph Smith."
"So, between that period, the people rejected all the disciples, all the apostles, and they took churches to themselves. If you look in history, this place set up a church, this place set up a church, this place set up a church, and they all disagreed. There was like multiple popes at one time. There was all kinds of..."
"Pardon me. What kind of faith tradition are you in, if I may ask?"
"I'm Eastern Orthodox."
"Oh, well, you would know from history though, that Eastern Orthodox is one of the churches that was set up, right? And then Catholicism, there's a split with Eastern Orthodox, and then after that, you have Martin Luther. There's another split there."
"And if you actually read back into Roman Catholicism, there was not a teaching, or at least a general broad teaching, that there, that the Pope had universal authority. That came later."
"Amen. Amen. Hey. Amen. Brother. You ain't..."
"Big problem. Big, big problem. 'Cause they say it happened from the beginning, but it's actually a guy that had governmental authority came in and said, 'Hey, you got to obey me because we're with Rome.'"
"But listen though, I'm saying though, how does that, do you think they rejected like actual prophets though from the time of the end of the Bible to Joseph Smith?"
"Yeah. Because in, in the Old Testament, you also have, you also have that happening like with Moses when he had the people of Israel. They saw the miracles. They had proof, and there were still rebels who rejected Moses. Said, 'Who is this Moses who has brought us out? Let's go back to Egypt.' And the Lord was just like, 'No, no, no. We got to, we got to help these people 'cause they're being deceived.' And those people actually end up getting swallowed by the earth. They got burned up in fires."
"Which prophets did they reject, though? That's what I'm trying to figure out."
"Oh, pardon me."
"Which prophets did they reject after the Bible before Joseph Smith?"
"I think they rejected and changed a lot of the teachings. They maybe they like accepted certain parts, kind of like how churches do nowadays. Like some people say baptism is necessary. Oh, no, it's not. Authority is necessary. Oh, no, it's not. I think it's that kind of thing. They..."
"Have like names of any of these prophets though? I'm trying to find where these prophets at."
"They reject, you like names of these prophets that they rejected."
"I'm just saying that they changed and rejected. They kept and they rejected other things that the apostles said."
"I know. You said they rejected prophets after the Bible though. Like, who were they?"
"I think Agabus was killed too."
"Yeah. You, I said after the Bible."
"Oh, after the Bible. Yeah. You said after the Bible, before Joseph Smith, there was many prophets that they, that they literally like threw out."
"Yeah. Because we believe that prophets were still called until the church left the earth, which again, we believe that the church didn't, didn't just cease to exist after Christ died. We believe that there was a period where they did have the authority to have prophets called apostles in the church, right?"
"So, could you name any of those they rejected?"
"Of course, I can't. They're outside the Bible. I don't even know their names. I don't really."
"So, how do you know they rejected them though? Like, what evidence do you have? There was, there was prophets that exist that they rejected."
"So, the biggest evidence for me that they rejected prophets is because they decided there's no more revelation. That means they don't want any more prophetic public revelation, period. They said there's no more revelation. God doesn't speak anymore through prophets, no more prophets. If you go throughout the Christendom, if you talk to like anyone except for us or maybe some other sects, they say there's no more prophets. It's just a broad thing. But..."
"How does that prove that there was actually prophets though during that time? That there were."
"I guess I, I can't prove that. Absolutely not. I can't, I can't do that."
"That wouldn't make sense. But, uh, also, how do you, what's your, how do you know Joseph Smith is a true prophet? What's your evidence for that? Curious."
"H. I'll, I'll, I'll answer your, I'll answer that question with a question. How do you know the Bible's true?"
"I would know the Bible is true for things like prophecy. Uh, no defeaters in terms of false prophecy as well. Uh, continuity with the previous prophets. All the prophets that come after the first one have continuity with the prior prophets, um, historically valid, etc."
"That, that's a very good response to frame it as Joseph Smith, because he did have prophecies which are interpreted as being false. Correct."
"But should I, should I ask this too, if, if you don't mind? How do you know that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, is the Messiah?"
"Because he rose from the dead."
"So how do you know he rose from the dead?"
"Based on what the apostles said, historical evidence, etc."
"Okay. So, evidence is good because it's true, right?"
"Yep."
"So, I know by historical evidence, which when Joseph Smith, he wrote the Book of Mormon, like 80% of it was anachronistic, right?"
"Now, it's a lot less. It's kind of, it's a bad bet to make against the Book of Mormon saying it's anachronistic. But I also know by the power of the Holy Ghost, because when I, I said I was a Trinitarian, I didn't know what God was. I didn't understand any of, I'd read all these verses. I, I tried to make it make sense in the Trinity and the creeds, and it just did not match up. But when I've studied what Joseph Smith wrote, it agreed with the Bible more than the creeds did. It agreed with the Bible more than anything I'd ever heard from any church father, because they were all confused about what God even was."
"So what prophecies did he give?"
"Well, the biggest one that was fulfilled was he said that the, that the civil, the American Civil War would be started over the slave question. It says 'slave question.' Should I, should I avoid that word? YouTube's going to freak out."
"That's fine. That's fine."
"That, that's the quote. It's over the slave question or the question of slavery in the Carolinas."
"How's that a prophecy though? Anyone could see that as that there was clearly a a difference between the South and the North between their view of slaves, and there was clearly something brewing. So, how's that a prophecy?"
"Because there wasn't at the time really any consistent like knowledge that there'd be a war over it. They, they, it had happened. I'm saying anyone could make the inference though, because clearly the North and the South were like, there was stuff that was brewing between them."
"Yeah. But no one really had an inclination to be a war. There'd be a civil war that would terminate in the destruction of many, many lives, and it would also lead to a world war."
"But that's like someone saying like for like a year ago that there would be a, a war between Israel and Iran. You could tell there's been stuff brewing between them for years. I wouldn't think that they're a prophet because of that."
"But you see, that one's more obvious. This one was not. I think it's, bro, it was very obvious within North. Like, if you look historically, it was very obvious."
"I looked, I looked. I, I had a point where I was agnostic atheist, and I wanted all to be fake, and I tried as much as I could to find historical evidence against it, and it just kept coming."
"But I'm telling you, that's a bad reason though, because if you looked historically, you would know that..."
"It was bad between the North and the South even prior to the war."
"Not from what I looked at. They didn't really have that inclination for like actual open hostility."
"'Cause I want to see too, exactly what he said too. So, what, where did he say that at, too? I like to like..."
"I, I'll gladly get that. So it's from the Doctrine and Covenants, which is of course outside the Bible, but we consider it scripture. I'll, I'll get the quote. Also, thanks for being so nice. I, I go on a lot of YouTube lives, and I appreciate how kind you're being."
"No problem. No problem."
"So it's Doctrine and Covenants chapter 130 verse 13. But that's the middle of the prophecy. Oh, so it starts at 12. He says, 'I prophesy, I prophesy in the name of the Lord God, that the, uh, concern of the difficulties which will cause much blood, bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina. It may be, it, it may probably arise through the slave question.' Bro..."
"I didn't notice those words."
"Okay. I didn't notice those words, but it's still, it happened in South Carolina."
"Bro, that's not a bro. Come on, bro. You know, Eli, you know, like that's bad."
"He said it in the name of the Lord."
"Bro, it might probably become because of that. Like, bro, that's, that's bad because listen, then if it didn't happen, y'all would just say, 'Oh, well, he said like probably, it might.' He didn't say for sure. Like, it's not a prophecy, bro."
"He's making an educated guess."
"That's all he's doing. He's saying it might probably happen."
"You got to admit that was a, it was a correct guess, though. Even if it was a guess, it was correct."
"Listen, Amen. It was a correct guess. That does not make him a prophet, though. Do you actually have like some sort of like direct prophecy where he says..."
"Not good enough. Going to happen?"
"Not good enough."
"Bro. No. Heck no."
"Do you have like a direct, like maybe a more direct one or..."
"Um, I don't think there's one that would be satisfactory, but we've also had prophets in modern day gives. They didn't like say, 'I prophesy.' But for example, when I was a kid, just before the housing crisis in the United States, we had a prophet named Gordon Binkley, and he said, 'Don't get in any more debt. Stop getting in debt right now.' And the people that stayed out of debt, especially with their house, didn't suffer as bad with the housing crisis. See, it's that kind of stuff."
"No duh. So you won't listen."
"That's not what usually comes out."
"Bro. No duh. If you stay out of debt, if there's a financial crisis, you're going to be better off, bro. That's like..."
"Dave Ramsey must be a prophet, 'cause he'd be saying the same thing."
"The gift of prophecy is not limited to people outside the church or inside the church. It's a gift from the Lord."
"Hey, bro. Well, listen, man. I appreciate you hopping up, bro. Listen, if you want to talk sometime, maybe like, you know, you could like maybe look up some more prophecies you had. We could talk some more about that sometime, bro."
"Okay. Thank you for your time."
"Yeah, it was good talking to you, bro."
"See you."
"Yo, yo, yo, yo, yo, man. Got Chad. Dave Ramsey is literally a pro. All right. I always knew I always knew I liked..."