THE MORMON DILEMMA | Hayden Carroll (LDS Apologist) vs Kelly Powers Debate Is Mormonism Demonic?

After Jesus's death and resurrection and the death of his apostles, Christ's church was corrupted by changes to his doctrine and ordinances. For centuries, the world was in a state of spiritual darkness without the presence of Christ's church.

In the spring of 1820, the young Joseph Smith was concerned for the welfare of his soul and sought to know which church he should join. He went to the woods near his home and prayed to ask God for direction. In answer to his prayer, God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph. Like Moses, Joseph spoke with God face to face. This event, known as the first vision, began the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ in our day.

See Joseph Smith. History 1:7-20. Gospel study guide: First Vision. When Jesus Christ was on the earth, he established his church among his followers. After his crucifixion and the deaths of his apostles, the fullness of the gospel was taken from the earth because of widespread apostasy. Through the prophet Joseph Smith, our Father in Heaven and his Son Jesus Christ restored the fullness of the gospel. The true church of Jesus Christ is on the earth again. Because of the restoration, the teachings and ordinances necessary for salvation are available to all people.

The following outline summarizes a few of the important events in the restoration of the gospel and the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which the Lord has declared as the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.

Restoration of the Church. Melchizedek Priesthood Authority. This greater priesthood was given to Adam and has been on the earth whenever the Lord has revealed his gospel. It was taken from the earth during the great apostasy, but it was restored in 1829 when the apostles Peter, James, and John conferred it upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.

Melchizedek Priesthood. "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matthew 7:15.) "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who shall privily bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bringing upon themselves swift destruction." (2 Peter 2:1.) "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." (2 Corinthians 11:4.) "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no marvel if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." (2 Corinthians 11:13-15.) "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:6-9.)

Fine. >> How you doing, Hayden?

>> I'm doing good. How are you? I've never seen your channel before. It just popped up and thought it would be fun to jump on and talk for a second.

>> Okay, right on. I uh I actually tagged you. Did you see the tag by chance?

>> I don't think so. I got so many notifications on here. It just came up in my um recommended videos.

>> Okay. Okay. Hey, how about that? Well, um I saw you and uh Jacob when you guys went out a little bit ago to go talk to Pastor Mark Driscoll.

>> Awesome.

>> Saw the video that uh Jacob first put up, the 7-minute video and saw that and I thought it was kind of unfortunate that Mark didn't actually come out and talk to you guys. I thought, well, if I was, you know, at that church, I would have gladly talked to you guys because I do uh street witnessing and street evangelism.

>> Cool.

>> So, I was a little disappointed by that. Um, I also saw um your video that you uploaded, the the hour plus version, and saw how uh they were basically trying to keep people from talking with you guys, which I thought was again

>> that's ironic.

>> It's funny. A lot of people have been saying Mark Driscoll is like a Charlie Kirk champion and Charlie Kirk was all about talking to people you disagree with. So, we thought it was quite ironic that not I mean really we didn't expect because we knew Mark was busy, right? He's in there like preparing for service and things like that, but the fact that his team really didn't allow anybody to come over and talk with us was just a little ironic. So, it's unfortunate. Maybe in the future. Well, I mean, yeah, if he's if he's preaching or teaching, obviously he's might, you know, obviously I have his obligations.

>> Yeah.

>> But, um, I mean, like I' I've been in pastoral roles before, not a senior pastor, but I've been assistant and elder, and if I was in a certain position and I knew somebody was outside what you guys are doing, I mean, take this, right? I'd be like, red flags. Okay, we got to go out and talk to these people. Um, so I would

>> at least reach out. At least send someone out and say, "Hey, get a card from them. Let's keep in touch."

>> Thank you for coming out here. Let's talk again sometime." Something. And so, yeah, I I felt that they definitely dropped the ball.

>> How do you How do you feel about his rhetoric about Mormons are demonic? Do you

>> How do you feel about that?

>> Well, that's a good question, actually, because I was just addressing that before you came in.

>> Oh, okay. Um, so a lot of times, so I can I give just about two or three minutes to give who I am.

>> Yeah, absolutely.

>> So I'm a born again Christian. I've been a Christian since the age of uh six uh 1977. I'm 54 now. Um it was just a little bit after high school in roughly 1990 when I graduated, but a year or two later I started getting into more of the Christian faith, learning about Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Latter Day Saints, other things. and then also my Christian faith as well. And I grew up uh Southern California, but I also grew up in Las Vegas and that's a lot of that area, a lot of Latter Day Saints, a lot of stuff out there. And um so I started studying, talking with LDS, talking with people who were Mormons, some of my friends were LDS um and talking to missionaries as well, talked to Mormon bishops. So I had quite a bit of talking with different people. And so in my experience and what the Bible talks about um be careful if an angel from heaven comes and preaches to you a different gospel you know let him be anathema. Paul talks about in 2 Corinthians 11 about those who preach a different gospel or receive a different spirit. Talks about Satan being an angel of light and that his ministers will be like you know his his servants. So, I know that there are groups today that are sincere in what they believe, but they're being led astray by demonic influence. There's just no other way to put that. So, to answer your question, I do believe that the Mormon church is demonic, but I'm not saying you as an individual are directly evil. That's not my intention. I believe if anyone is truly not believing in the biblical Jesus and the biblical gospel, they're being led astray by demonic influences. And that's how I'd answer your question.

>> How do you how do you justify your view of the biblical Jesus considering that the Trinity doctrine of the consubstantiation is not found in the biblical text? Right? Because I would just turn that back on you and I would say you're actually the one who doesn't have the biblical Jesus. Right. So now it's up to each of us to justify our Jesus if you want to say it like that.

>> Sure.

>> And so so my and I've asked this question to I don't know how many Christians and not a single one is able to justify the trinitarian notion of the oneness of God using the Bible.

>> Sure.

>> Right. So I would just crit I would criticize that. I I would I would question the presumption that you have the correct understanding. And then there's a whole another conversation of what are the real life consequences of labeling other groups as demonic? You might know of the Michigan shooting of Latter-day Saints that just happened a couple months ago. That guy called us the Antichrist. And so a question I have for Christians is if we are the Antichrist, should we be killed? Right? So that's a whole another conversation. But yeah, let's talk about what's how do we know what the biblical Jesus is? maybe is the the best way.

>> Right. So, one of the things that I find interesting is on the screen, if you can see that, this is first Nephi 14.

>> Yeah.

>> Uh 9 and 10. Just kind of going back to what you were just talking about a second ago. And this is apparently was written 600 BC. So, it's before the time of the birth of Jesus, before the Christian church, and all these different things. And it says this, "It came to pass that he said unto me, look, and behold, the great and abominable church, which is the mother of abominations, whose founder is the devil." He said unto me, "Behold, there are save two churches only. One is the church of the lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil. Wherefore, who so belongth not to the church of the lamb of God belongth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations. and she is the of all the earth. And I assume that you know that Doctrine of Covenants 130 says that the only true church is the Latter-day Saints. And I assume that you also know Joseph Smith's testimony when he's being asked to know which one to join, he's told they're all wrong, their creeds are abomination, they're all being led astray. So when I was sharing before you came on, a lot of times we as Protestants or evangelicals or I'm just call myself born again Christian, we get labeled with this kind of like this this hatred if you will towards Larry Saints. And I think it's actually kind of a little bit reverse if you know Joseph Smith because it was actually Joseph Smith who actually first went out against the denominations and groups back then claiming they were all wrong. They were all an abomination and well he was claiming that he was the one who was now giving them the true gospel. In fact, if you remember correctly, unless you're different, you know that the articles of faith talks about that you believe that God the father, the son, holy spirit are three distinct person, but it also says there are three gods. Says three gods. And Joseph Smith also said to know the first principle of the gospel is to know that God was once a man who became a god and we can become gods too. Do you have any disagreement with anything I just shared there?

>> Yeah, tons. So, uh, tell me, you shared that scripture from the Book of Mormon. Are you familiar with the context of that verse, who's speaking, who they're speaking to, the purpose of that? Are you familiar with anything that you quoted from that?

>> I am.

>> If you can give me something that tells me that there's more than one true church, I'd like to know.

>> Yeah. So, are you said you are familiar with who's talking here?

>> Yeah. We can go back to the beginning here. Mhm. So, you would know that this is a vision that was given to Nephi to help explain the tree of life vision given to his father in chapter 8. And that the language of the two churches is not literal. We we even had members of the church and even leadership in the church at one point that thought it was literal and they were re they were rebuked by the church.

>> When was it when were they rebuked?

>> Uh in like the 1980s. So, uh, my point is that this is not a literal like this chapter that you're that you're bringing up. It doesn't have to do with actual congregations, right? And we're not using this in our apologetics.

>> So, who who's the church of the lamb of God then?

>> We we would say it's a symbolism of good versus evil, right? God is good, devil is evil, right? By necessity. So, so this is not referring to particular denominations is my point. That's the way that we read it.

>> Do you have do you have any modern apostles of revel revelation that would claim that? because like I've looked in the past like you said that uh leaders of the LDS have said that this is what it claims and even like what it says in Doctrine of Covenant one third there's only one true church which is the LDS church and if Joseph Smith is being told they're all wrong how do you how do you get around that

>> well we would say that there is one similar to the Catholics the Roman Catholics, we'd say there's one apostolic church, right? But we're not going around saying other people are demonically inspired, demonically possessed. We actually take a stance that says we actually love the other churches and what they're doing as long as they're not causing harm. I think there are some religions that may do that. But even for evangelicals, we're very grateful for the Reformation. We're grateful for the early church and the church fathers. Um, like I said, we did have members of the church who used to say used to label particular denominations as that church and the official church authority councils have come back and said that is incorrect. The scriptures never teach that. That's never been a doctrine. So, it was an interpretation at one time, but the churches rebuked those who uh put that forward.

>> Well, what about So, I I don't

>> I don't know how you can get around what you claim there, but if that's what they're claiming, still previous church leaders said otherwise. So you got church leaders going against church leaders.

>> Yeah. I mean I mean but but you know that Okay, let me ask you this. Do you have people in Christianity who disagree with each other? Right. That's there's not

>> we don't respectely though Hayden. But you got like people who would be apostles and prophets.

>> Sure.

>> Your church well the apostles testament disagreed with each other did they not

>> on doctrine?

>> Sure. They counseledled together. which which which apostles had differences of doctrines?

>> Um, I'm pretty sure isn't the council of Jerusalem where they counseledled together. I don't know if it gives

>> Acts 15.

>> Um, yeah, I don't know the exact scripture

>> but I think they didn't have difference of doctrine. They would have had difference of what is known how to deal with what was known as the Pharisee the sect of the Pharisees that were claiming they were claiming you've got to believe in Jesus plus keeping the law. So the apostles came together in Acts 15 had to deal with it and then Peter actually then defends that we are saved by faith not by works or not by keeping the law. There was no disagreements with the apostles there.

>> I don't

>> let me but let me bring you back to this here on the screen. Let me ask you about Joseph Smith.

>> Well, let me just say one other thing that kind of so so rejecting your worldview because you believe apostles are infallible in what they everything they teach

>> in the scripture. Sure.

>> Okay. So we would well we wouldn't agree with with that but in a similar way just because one church leader said something even in a book they published that book is not scripture right so

>> if they're a prophet

>> sure yeah they can they can have an opinion that's not official church doctrine or not scripture right so that would be our position is they can disagree but when doctrines establish they come together in a unified way

>> okay well on the screen here let me just show you what I'm talking about so this is what it says Acts arose a certain sect of the Pharisees which believing saying there is needful to circumcise them command them to keep the law of Moses the apostles and elders came together consider this matter when they had been much to be disputing Peter rose up and said to them men and brethren you know that a good while God made a choice among you that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe and God knoweth the hearts bear them witness giving them the Holy Ghost even as he did unto us but no difference between us and them purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why do you tempt you, God? Put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we are able to bear. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved even as they." So there's there's no debate.

>> Okay. Well, well, let's we'll go up to verse six really quick. It says, "And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, what does it mean to dispute?" Well, let's click on the word. Let's see what they claim here.

>> Well, I just mean like you you don't have to use our definition of it. Use any definition. What does it mean to dispute?

>> I just want to see what it says here. So, dispute amongelves.

>> No, this is this is topical guy. This is not definition.

>> Okay. Well,

>> even in your own whatever translation you want to use, you can't deny that the apostles were disputing with one another. Let's let's

>> And then Peter stood up and ended the conversation essentially, right?

>> Let's let's do what you just said. Let's put us to blue letter Bible. Let's come over here and look at uh the interlinear.

>> Yeah. After there had been much debate amongst the apostles.

>> Yeah. So debate discussion. Debate means discussion. Does it mean doesn't mean that they were debating themselves?

>> Questioning or debate matter of controversy. Of course it means that you wouldn't debate with somebody that you disagree with

>> so

>> or that you agree with rather.

>> So my friend when it says here after been after there been much disputing Peter rose up doesn't mean that they were debating themselves.

>> Sure it does

>> means that they were having the debate amongst what how to deal with this situation. Doesn't mean they were debating themselves in doctrine. Doesn't mean they were coming against each other or having kind of differences. That's that you have to read into a text something that's not there.

>> Well let's see here. Pharisees that it was needful circumc. Okay. Okay. So, they were talking about circumcision.

>> Mhm.

>> So, it sounds like some of the apostles didn't agree with each other on this matter, right?

>> Where does it say that?

>> It says that they were considering the matter of circumcision.

>> Who was it?

>> The apostles and prophets came together to consider the matter in verse six. And when there had been much disputing amongst those individuals in verse six,

>> you had some disagreements. I don't know how you get around that. I mean, you can just say that disputing doesn't mean they disagreed, but I don't know how you would. So when you look at the word dispute means questioning searching different things you can look up here what's inquiring inquiring I mean this does not mean that the apostles were having differences of doctrine that would be ludicrous to even suggest

>> but why is it wait I want to go back to what you brought up though

>> well now you're arguing from incredul why is that ludicrous help me understand why apostles can't disagree with each Tell me where it says they were debating a difference of doctrine here.

>> I'm saying they're disputing the matter of circumcision.

>> Inquiring, questioning doesn't mean there are differences of doctrine or are debating each other.

>> Disputing means they disagree with one another.

>> I just showed you

>> dispute. I just showed you what the definition inquiring questioning

>> a subject of questioning or debate matter that they were debating each other as apostles. That's that's ludicrous to even think that.

>> Why why is that ludicrous?

>> Because of the context in the context. Look, let's let's go back even farther. Okay, let's go back to verse one. after certain men came down from Judea,

>> the brethren, and said, "Except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved." When Paul and Barnabas had no dissension and dispensation with them.

>> Okay. What is what does disputation with them? What does that phrase mean?

>> What do you think it means?

>> It means they had disagreements

>> with who?

>> With the men in verse one. And then you take that word. So the men in verse one,

>> so the men in verse one, who are they?

>> The men of Judea. Let's see. Certain men which came down from Judea to taught the brethren. Yeah. Probably Israelites.

>> So So Paul and Barmer are disputing these people.

>> Yes.

>> I understanding people who are saying to be saved.

>> So Paul is not debating other apostles here. Well, well, that's Well, I'm saying take the word in verse two, disputation, and apply the same meaning in verse 7. You're saying they mean two different things. Like, obviously, they're arguing in verse two

>> when therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispution disputation with them. They determined that Paul and Barnas and certain other men should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostle and elders about this question. So it looks like in this conversation they didn't get into a big debate with these guys.

>> Help me why. Help me understand why you're so adamant that the apostles can't disagree with each other. Why? Like where does the text ever say that?

>> So this now you're changing you're moving the goalpost. We're talking I'm asking you originally you said Hayden Hayden what you originally said was having difference of doctrines.

>> Right? In other words that I didn't

>> that's what you applied earlier on. You did say that.

>> I didn't say that.

>> You did.

>> I said they can have different opinions.

>> No. No. We're talking about infallible teachings. You talked about the word of God. That's what you said. I said yes. So, when it comes to teachings and doctrine, I said yes. And then you brought up this, which gives a different context.

>> you could roll back the tape and see that. That's exactly what you're saying.

>> Okay, that's fine. What I'm saying now is that the apostles are obviously disagreeing on this topic. And if you want to say it's not doctrine, I'm okay with that. That's fine. Where does it say the apostles are disagreeing

>> in verse seven?

>> Anybody in the live chat listening, do you guys agree with this? Do you guys think that? I'm just asking because like maybe you're right. Maybe I'm missing it. I don't see this them disagreeing that them inquiring and then it shows Peter standing up and speaking to the brethren. So, I don't see how that would go with that. But now, if I can go back to what we were talking about a second ago, let me ask you if this still holds true. So, you said a moment ago and what I shared to you, 1 Nephi 14. You're saying now the church official teachings is

>> the church never had an official teaching that that was denomination specific.

>> Well, there were leaders who did teach that back in the day. Okay.

>> Well, like I said, they can have their opinions. It's not official teaching of the church. So if if any average Joe, meaning not like Joe Smith, just average Joe in general, person who reads First Nephi 14, just just just read this here.

>> Mhm.

>> How does anyone get a different conclusion? How do you get a different conclusion?

>> Let me ask you a question. What church is on the earth in 600 BC? Biblically speaking,

>> well, according to the context of this verse, what what church is Nephi a part of?

>> You tell me.

>> He's not part of a church. That's why this is not denomination specific.

>> Are you telling me there was no church of God in the Old Testament?

>> At this point, they had left Jerusalem and he was not attending a synagogue or anything like that. There was he wasn't attending a service. He wasn't going to a church building on Sundays. They were in the wilderness. So he's not Yep. That's what I'm saying. In context, the angel is not telling Nephi, "Hey, your church is of God and every other church is of the devil." He's giving a symbolic allegory, if you will, of good and evil. I don't, Unless you want to be the arbiter of our scripture and the interpretation of it, that's what I'm telling you. That's how we interpret it.

>> So, help me out. So, are you telling me before Jesus and the apostles there was no church in the Old Testament?

>> I'm saying Nephi wasn't a part of a church at this point.

>> So, is the answer there were churches back then?

>> Um, I don't know if churches is the right way to say it. The Israelites were

>> church. Do you have that view? Was there a church in the Old Testament?

>> I think there were bodies of believers that got together and worshiped together.

>> I agree with that. But is it not true unless uh I've read wrong in the past uh that don't you believe that there were the church was existing in the Old Testament as well?

>> Uh not necessarily in the same way that it was when Christ established it.

>> Okay. But there still was church. Correct.

>> It depends what you mean by that. There were bodies of believers who worshiped together. If you want to call that a church, sure. Were there not prophets and leaders in hierarchy and authority over people?

>> Sure. I mean, that's like Moses. Absolutely.

>> Okay. Semantics. We'll move on. So, here's what I'm trying to say.

>> Can I can I ask you a question?

>> But I want to finish what I was trying to say. This this this gets back to Joseph Smith.

>> Okay.

>> So, if you want to try to give a different view of what First Nephi 14 is now, um I'll let other people make up their own minds on that one. Here's what Joseph Smith claimed though. He's wanting to know which sect, which group, which denomination, which church to be a part of. This is his testimony. And he was answered, I join none of them, for they were all wrong. They are all wrong. The person who's addressed me said, "All their creeds are an abomination, and all their professions are all corrupt. They draw near with me lips, and their hearts are far from me. teach doctrines of the commandments of men having the form of godliness but they deny the power thereof. Is this still true to this day?

>> Um we would say I mean even Joseph wouldn't claim that there's no truth in any other religion. Right? This this is language that he's getting from Jesus Christ to say look none of the denominations have the truth necessary for salvation. they don't have the authority and that's going to be restored. That's essentially what he's saying.

>> So when it says just to be clear, join none of them. They are all wrong.

>> Yeah, we believe

>> all their creeds are an abomination. They're all corrupt. If if that was then in 1820, has it gotten any better today? Have we changed at all? Are we still the same as it was in 1820?

>> Well, I think your your doctrine of the nature of God is corrupt. I think your doctrine of the nature of scripture is corrupt and I think those two alone set you in a course that leads to lots of different issues. Like for example, let me let me just prove this to you. You believe the Bible is the final authority. I assume you are do you are you solos scriptura?

>> Can before we move the goalpost, I just want to stay here.

>> I'm not well I'm not moving the goalpost. I'm I'm showing you

>> what I'm talking about right now. Is this true to this day, Hayden? Is what I just read here that you have in your Pearl great price Joseph Smith history is these statements true? Are all the denominations wrong? Are all of their creeds an abomination? And are all their professors correct

>> on many of their core doctrines? Absolutely. And that's what he's saying here.

>> Okay. So then wouldn't it be actually accurate to say that there's only one true church and all the other ones are actually of the devil?

>> Uh no. Because we don't believe that every person who's in another church is being led by the devil as far as going to hell. We don't believe that they're demonically possessed. We believe people are trying their best and uh we don't necessarily attribute their mistake or their disagreement with us to the devil. So, so let can I just can we talk about your standard because one of the things that I really find interesting most of the time is Protestant evangelical Christians will come at us with this standard that's unjustifiable, right? Because you're going to be judging me off of your understanding that the Bible's the final authority. So, my challenge to all Protestants, and I've never had one be able to fulfill this challenge or complete it.

>> Can Can I ask one more question? What I was just talking you just grilled me. You just crossexed me for 15 minutes.

>> It's when you just said that Joseph Smith would have said there would have been good, right? Is that what you just said?

>> Sorry. Say that again.

>> You just said that Joseph Smith would have said there would have been good in other type of denomination thing like that, right?

>> I think sometimes he may speak rhetorically. I mean, he's not stupid. He doesn't believe that every single church is teaching all bad things. This is not

>> This is what's known. I just want to read it. And if you tell me if you still agree with this or not. This is what's known as the history of the church. This is from BYU volume six.

>> And I want to get to the part here where it says here um I just want to make sure I don't I don't want to misquote something. So I don't want to if

>> I don't want to So here we go. Here it is. Right here. This is page 304 and 305. This is what Joseph Smith taught. The meadow not with any man for his religion. that all governments ought to permit every man to enjoy his religion unmolested. No man is authorized to take away life and consequence of difference of religion which all laws and governments ought to tolerate and protect. Right or wrong, every man has a natural and in our country constitute a right to be a false prophet as well as a true prophet. If I show verily that I have the truth of God and show that 99 out of a 100 professing religious ministers are false teachers having no authority while they pretend to hold the keys of the kingdom of on earth of God on earth and was to kill them because they are false teachers. It would delude the whole world with blood. I will prove the world is wrong by showing what God is. I'm going to inquire after God. I want you all to know him. Be familiar with him. And if I'm bringing to you a knowledge of him, all persecutions against me ought to cease. You will then know that I am his servant speaking one authority. Do you agree or disagree with Joseph Smith here?

>> With which part? All of it.

>> If he was to prove all the false teachers in the whole world, it would delude the whole world of blood. Um, I don't know exactly what he means by that. You mean that nobody there'll be like world peace?

>> He is I'm I'm assuming you've read this before, correct?

>> Uh, no. Is this is this you said history of the church, but what is the actual source of it? What's the sermon?

>> So, this is what's known as a king falllet discourse.

>> Oh. Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. But this this paragraph is one that we definitely don't focus on.

>> Well, if you go back to page 302, 302, and 304, it gives a little but obviously I'm not going to read the whole thing to you.

>> Yeah. Okay.

>> Question. Well, you know that Joseph never edited this. This is

>> conglomerations of I'm not saying it's not accurate necessarily, but there's a reason why this isn't scripture, right? And yet many things of the King Flet discourse are in tons of LDS official publications of the Church of Christ saints.

>> Yeah, I don't have a problem doing like buffet. That's not good.

>> Well, the church has the authority to take what it takes as authoritative and to publish that.

>> So when Joseph Smith makes these outlandish claims, you can just disregard him. What you're saying? uh if the church which has the authority to do that chooses to do so. Absolutely. That's what I'm saying. What standard are you judging me on? So, can I ask you to your standard?

>> Okay, fair enough. I asked you that question. I want to get your answer.

>> Looking at a little bit more down the road. Okay.

>> Okay. So, help me understand. You you believe the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice for Christians. Is that true?

>> I believe it is the inspired word of God as Paul says that we can use for correction, teaching, and doctrine. It's the source that we would go to for truth. Yes. Like the whole 66 books

>> Genesis to Revelation is what we have to correct. Yes.

>> Okay. And where did God say that the 66 books are his word?

>> Doesn't say it directly in the word of God.

>> Okay. So why do you believe that?

>> Because the word of God claims to be inspired. Joseph uh Jesus Christ as we know is the son of God savior. Prophets who spoke of you know Messiah to come. the apostles that we know gave their life for him. We see Peter talking about Paul. We see Paul writing about other letters. We would even look in the first century or two before there was even any official cannons that they quoted all from what we would know as the New Testament day as actually being authentic and real. And so we have good credible history.

>> They quoted all.

>> Yeah. There's over 36,289 references in the first couple of centuries before there was even a canon cited 99%

>> I'm saying where did God or his apostles qualify what the canon is like why are you accepting the book of Hebrews

>> so so here how about this

>> well if you don't have an answer for that then that's what I'm saying your position falls apart if you can't justify your standard right

>> so then if if if we're going to use your logic And how do we then know what is truth and what's not truth, Hayden?

>> Well, the same way that during the time before the Bible was around,

>> like I'll ask you, how did people know truth before the Bible?

>> Tell me. You tell me.

>> No, I'm asking you to answer that question.

>> We had the Tanakh, the Hebrew scriptures

>> before and before anything was penned. How did could do you believe people could know truth or were they just

>> Well, of course, Abraham did not have a book in front of him. God

>> Okay.

>> spoken and how did Abraham know

>> Moses before he wrote anything down. So of course we have divine revelation. So here's the question I push back to you Hayden. So we have divine revelation and we have the word of God and then we've got different people who claim they've got some inspiration from God directly. How then do we test anything that someone claims to be a divine? How do I test Joseph Smith's testimony compared to say Muhammad? How do I test either of those guys to know which one of these guys is actually a true prophet?

>> Well, you have the same issue. I'm not I'm not saying there's not an issue there, but you have the same issue with Moses. How did the people of Moses know that he was talking with God and revealing what God wanted them to know

>> at that time? It would have been by faith for sure at that time.

>> Okay. Okay. So you admit that we don't need a text necessarily to know that God is speaking.

>> We're in a different time frame. That was over 3,500 years ago when God were first calling someone like Moses. So we have a progression. Don't get me wrong. I understand what you're saying.

>> We have different people. You have Abraham. You've got Moses. You've got different people early on that there was no written form at that time. As time would went on, we know that there were writings for sure at the time of Jesus. He quotes over there's over 1,600 quotations.

>> Jesus, 1600 there's over 1,600 quotations in the New Testament pointing back to the Old Testament as authoritative. That gives us a divine stamp of approval.

>> Does Jesus qualify or quote from every single book in the Old Testament?

>> No. Not everyone. No.

>> Okay. So, why do you accept the Old Testament that he didn't quote from? So, is is this more of a debate for you on whether or not we know what's actually in the Bible or what the Bible actually teaches?

>> I asked you a second.

>> How do I test Joseph Smith if his testimony is true or not? How do I test that?

>> In the same way that you would have tested Moses.

>> How? Please tell me.

>> You You would have a personal experience with Moses, with some of his fruits, with God himself. Like do do you believe that God can speak clearly to us or do you think that's not a possibility?

>> Oh, I do believe God can. I also believe that if it's truly coming from God, it will match what God has already revealed to us. Would you agree?

>> But your issue is you can't justify what God has revealed. That's what I'm

>> If you get a new revelation, Hayden,

>> how can we know a new revelation is true or false? How do we know that? In the same way that the individuals who were living with the old ancient prophets or the new prophets, right? How did somebody know that Paul was a prophet? He he was teaching without the New Testament.

>> Of course they were. Same with Peter and the other guys. They were go. So what did they what did they go to Hayden?

>> What was their authority for what they used for scripture? Well, they didn't have the same Old Testament cannon that you have today.

>> Are you sure?

>> The Old Yes, absolutely. The Old Testament cannon was heavily disputed at that time. That's why you don't have Jesus naming the cannon.

>> They have they had a recognized

>> They had a recognized Old Testament was another 22 books. They had that. Okay. They had that.

>> They didn't have 39.

>> Again, you're you're here debating canonization of scripture. We're talking about how can we test what Joseph Smith taught is true or false.

>> Well, you're Well, here's the deal. You cross-exed me for 50 minutes. I answered your questions about the scripture about Joseph. If you read all those quotes,

>> but I'm trying to turn it back on me.

>> Adam, I'm going to press you a little bit. If you're going to say about how do we know true from error?

>> No, I'm not saying that.

>> This should be a fundamental this should be easy. You should still say the word of God is still authoritative know right or wrong. Kelly, respectively, you're not understanding what I'm saying. I think

>> Try again. Try again.

>> How do you justify your cannon? Just explain that to me.

>> So, I already said before, I'll say it again.

>> Okay.

>> We have Jesus and the apostles quoting over 1600 times throughout the Old Testament. We know Jesus spoke of Moses. He speaks of Adam and Eve. We know Paul speaks of these things. We see Peter and the other apostles write about these different things that give us this validity to what we call the Old Testament. Now we have disciples like Polycarp or Ignatius or other people who would have been disciples of people like Matthew or John or others that would have known these apostles firsthand that we get from church history. So then we see early on the dedicay you've got people like um Polycarp Clement of Alexandria different people or Clement of Rome sorry different people who are quoting the apostles directly of their teachings and we even see in the first couple of centuries this is this is really amazing I don't know if you know this maybe you don't in the first couple of centuries the early church fathers again I'm not saying I agree with all their teaching I'm just saying we're talking about this right now the scripture They quoted 36,289 times, literally 99% what we see.99 of what we have in the New Testament. That's pretty outstanding. And they taught they and they quote it for for teaching and authority. But you're still not justifying where God or his apostles said what was scripture and what wasn't. It seems like you're accepting your cannon based on tradition. Like help me understand why do you accept the book of Hebrews? Who wrote the book of Hebrews? Okay. Why is it scripture?

>> So,

>> and if you can't justify it, you don't have a standard to judge me by.

>> Well, then if you say that's the case, if if you use that logic, hey, not trying to be disrespectful, then you can't quote anything in the Bible.

>> Well, you can't use my

>> What about What about Matthew? Doesn't say doesn't say I Matthew, one of the 12. It we just know it to be the book of the Gospel of Matthew.

>> Matthew didn't write Matthew. Well, I should say we don't know if Matthew wrote Matthew. There's no, it doesn't, he doesn't identify himself as Matthew.

>> Who wrote Matthew?

>> We don't know. That's our best guess. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. We don't know.

>> So,

>> unless you like the only first person author we know.

>> Absolutely. All of the gospels are anonymous. The only author that we think we know who it was is Paul.

>> Yeah. Do you like Show me?

>> Wow. That is very interesting, Hayden. So when we look to

>> like show me how do you Yeah.

>> Do you do you believe that the apostles had disciples at the time?

>> Uh probably. But I don't believe in

>> I don't I don't believe in the scripture being authoritative for the same reason you do. You don't have a reason to why you believe. So, have you actually taken the time to look at the first couple centuries of church history, Hayden?

>> Absolutely.

>> So, tell me, who was the disciples of Matthew and John?

>> I'm sure some of the early church fathers. I don't know them by name off the top of my head.

>> I just mentioned a couple. Polycarp, Ignatius.

>> Okay. But

>> Clement of Alexandria, Clement of Rome. These are early people that testified that knew the apostles,

>> quoted them, and even said they wrote such and such. Are you calling those guys liars? Not necessarily. I'm saying where.

>> So then we have witnesses who testify of what these guys wrote.

>> Okay. So help me understand this. Who named the book of Matthew? The Gospel of Matthew. Was it Polycarp?

>> Um

>> like what what contemporary evidence do you have?

>> One second. Sorry. One sec. Give me like 30 seconds. Be right back.

>> Let's see what the chat's saying. Uh you guys, this is the issue. Hope he doesn't mind that I uh talk for a second. If you are an evangelical or a Protestant, you should be comfortable saying that yeah, we don't have a justification for why

>> you're taking liberty to talk about stuff on my channel with me not here. How rude. I had to take care of something that was disrespectful. Um so let's go back to what we're talking about. So how can we know anything of the New Testament if by your qualification what you just said a second ago.

>> Sorry, say that again. Say that one more time for me.

>> How can we know anything then of the Gospels of who wrote what based on what you just said if we don't even

Know who actually wrote them?

We don't know who wrote them, and you don't have any evidence that we do. That's the issue you're running into.

Well, then why are they in your Bible?

We believe that whoever wrote them, regardless if they were apostles or whatever, that they are reliable in their historicity regarding the life of Jesus Christ. We don't think that they are infallible. We do believe that they are highly reliable. And that's the difference between you and I.

You don't believe that the Bible is actually the inspired, infallible word of God. But you will believe it.

So how do you know? So if you don't even know Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are actually even by those guys, and you're not claiming that it's infallible, then how can you know anything being taught? Hold on. How can you know anything about Jesus as savior, son of God, Messiah? How can you quote anything from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as being true and authoritative if you don't even know if it's actually right or wrong?

First of all, you saying that, let me answer. You saying that the Bible is infallible is a baseless presupposition that can essentially be proven false in a minute.

Go for it. You got 60 seconds.

Well, let me let me continue my answer, and we'll come back to that.

You can't do it. You can't do it in 60 minutes.

If you want to go over contradictions of the Bible, I'd love to to see it.

Oh, now you're getting even worse. Wow, you're becoming like a Muhammad. So you just asserting that it's infallible. First of all, God never said that.

God never said that your 66 books is infallible. So I don't know why you believe that.

And we're talking, we're just talking.

Can I finish my answer? Can I finish my answer?

You keep making these ridiculous statements. I have to make something. Look, all I'm asking you is how can you know what's in the Bible is what I'm trying to answer. That's what I'm trying to answer.

So instead of trying to prove fallacy or what you're trying to prove, just tell me how can I know what's in the Bible is true or false?

Just like anything else, how do you know whether anything is true or false?

Tell me.

I'm asking you.

No, I'm ask I've already been asking the question a long time. Tell me how can I know what is in the Bible's true or false?

Aiden, in the same way that those who understood truth before the Bible was penned understood truth. And so my question to you is, how do you know whether anything

You haven't answered the question, Hayden. How can I know what's written in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John is true or false? How can I know this?

Do you mean how do I have 100% rational certainty of it? Or what are you asking? What do you mean no?

Do you quote at times anything in the gospels when you do any kind of your streams, teaching, whatever you do, do you quote anything?

Your issue is that you're assuming.

Can you answer the question?

Yeah. Yes, I am right now.

What's the What's the question, Hayden? You're assuming that a source has to be infallible. No

for us something.

I'm asking you if you're quoting something about Jesus in the book of Matthew.

We we have

Mark, John, how do you know what's true or what's false?

In the same way that you do.

No, not the same way I do.

No, I'm asking. How do you do it?

Okay. Let me ask you a question. If I just asserted

Answer the question.

Yes, I am. If I just asserted that the Book of Mormon was infallible, would that be good enough for you?

Is the Book of Mormon infallible?

I'm saying if it was,

Is it?

I'm asking you that question. It's a hypothetical.

Would it be good enough?

If I found a book of scripture and it claimed I thought it claimed to be infallible,

Would that be good enough evidence for us to believe it's infallible?

Just making the claim.

Yeah.

Of course not. We'd have to check it out for sure.

Okay. Okay. So, why do you believe the Bible is or needs to be infallible? That's your You're not even answering

What I'm asking you, Hayden. How do you Hayden Carol

know what's true or false in the Gospels?

In the same way that every individual knows that anything is true. At the end of the day, if you're trying to get to the spearhead of my epistemology, I believe God can speak clearly to us as individuals. I don't know how you get around that or how you would dispute that.

How do you test when you think God's talking to you, Hayden? How do you know it's right or wrong?

Okay, this is a great I was hoping you'd bring this up. How did Paul know that he was speaking with Jesus Christ?

Hayden, can you answer the question? I'm asking you.

Well, you have to answer the question. Hayden, how do you know?

I'm Well, can you

I'm diverting deflecting. How do you

know?

You You're Mr. Deflator in this whole game so far. How do you know?

The reason is you're judging me off a different standard than you judge Paul.

How do you know, Hayden? It's not a hard question. How do you know what's true or false?

I Are you talking about revelation or you talking about knowing anything? Because those are two different things.

How old are you, Hayden?

I'm 30.

How old are you?

I'm 54.

So, why aren't you answering my question? Let's be

You're judging me and telling me I can't have a reliable experience with God.

Let's be men, Hayden. I'm asking you a question. We're talking about spiritual matters in the Bible. I've asked you about 20 times now. How do you know if what's being recorded and taught in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John?

You're not being precise in your language. What do you mean? No. Extrapolate on that a little bit. How do you know if what's recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, and what's being taught about Jesus Christ or anything else in those gospels? How do you know if that's true or false?

In the same way that anybody who doesn't hold this strict fundamental infallible Bible theology does. You look at the evidence. You look at the historical record. I mean, we don't dispute like I said that

How would you know if what Jesus taught was true or false if we were living during the time of Jesus and he was claiming to be the Messiah?

How would how would we know?

Yes, I okay.

Yes, okay. You get an answer. Yes.

You should answer that question for yourself.

He quoted scripture.

Okay, but

Jesus contradicted scripture.

So, how did you know if you

Wow, this is getting worse. This is this is like I have to say this is the worst I've ever heard of LDS. And you you've literally said the Bible is not infallible. It's not truly trustworthy. It's got contradictions. You can't even know who wrote what.

Now you're just arguing. Now you're just arguing. I can't believe that you would do this. But you're not justifying anything that you're saying. You're you're assuming that you have the correct position. And if I say anything against that, it's oh my gosh, I can't.

So, let me ask you, if I was to go if I was to go through the Hayden Carol translation, how would I know which verses are trustworthy and which ones are not?

In the

How would I how would I determine that like you have?

In the same way that if you were standing in front of Paul and he was telling you something by revelation, how would you know whether or not that was true?

We go to scripture.

And you didn't have the scripture in your life.

They had the Old Testament then. They did. They had the scriptures.

But he was teaching things that were not in accordance to the Old Testament. He was teaching about Jesus Christ.

This was being taught that he was being pointed to the one that they were expecting to come.

So they went to scripture. Acts 10:1. They listened eagerly and they went to the scripture to see whether what Paul said was true or false. That's what they did.

And so when Paul taught something that wasn't in their scriptures, how did they know if it was true or not?

See what you're doing right now.

So what I'm doing is I'm showing you the double

Stand. You're playing a game. I've been around longer than when you've been born. I've been doing this before you were even born. Listen, how can I know anything you How can I know anything you say is credible if all you keep saying is, "Well, this is not right. This is not right. This is not right." It's basically what you're doing, Hayden. It's called Bible Buffet.

You're picking and choosing what you want to be right. You're asking theology.

You're asking me a question of epistemology. You're saying, "How do you know what's true?" And I'm saying, "The same way everyone else does." And I

The same way. What's the same way?

You haven't You're given the same way. You keep saying that.

Yes, I have. You look at the evidence. You have the evidence.

How do you look at the evidence?

With your senses? You have a personal experience with God like people did before the Bible existed.

Like, answer the question. Can you can you just answer the If you can't answer this question, we're not going to get anywhere.

What's What's the question you think I'm not answering? If you were in the presence of Paul and he was teaching you things that were not in the Hebrew scriptures, how would you know whether or not what he taught was true?

What? Give me your best example.

When he taught that the resurrection was there were bodies celestial and bodies terrestrial. How would you know if that was true or not?

You're talking 1 Corinthians 15.

Yes. How would you know as a first century follower of Jesus that you'd never met him. Like answer a question. If you can't answer it,

Instead of being so snarky, maybe you'll listen for a second. So, just like when the prophets in the Old Testament would speak, thus sayeth the Lord, future events, and they were prophets, we would have to take certain things, of course, by faith, but it wouldn't go contrary to the character nature of God. Okay.

So, with the Apostle Paul, you're telling me,

Hold on. Hold on. I'm still answering your question. I'm not deflecting.

Will you will you cut me off?

I'm answering your question.

Paul met with other apostles. We know in scripture he is considered later.

He's still considered authoritative, which Corinthians would have been later after he talked with the apostles. Okay?

And he's given us new revelation pertaining to the afterlife that is not recorded anywhere else. So we would go by what the apostle Paul is teaching

As number one, he is an apostle of Jesus Christ.

Number two, that answer he's

Understood amongst the apostles to be in authority, a servant of Jesus Christ, and he's teaching Christians this new understanding of what takes place when we die and what the new life is going to be in the afterlife. So if he taught something there that would go contrary to total absolutely bankrupt about what was taught somewhere, then we would have a problem.

Well, you're not Well, you answered my question, and it was actually

Pretty good too, actually.

Yeah, but the issue is now you're putting me on a different standard and acting like I'm stupid about it.

Well, so far, Hayden, mouth, that's what's been going on. If I told you that I believed that something was true because an apostle told me, you would probably press and I said, "Well, it's by faith." You'd probably tell me, "Well, then now you can't know it's true." But that's the same that they were using.

Give me an example.

I mean, any Latter-day Saints, give me an example of what you mean by your apostles. Give me an example.

The the I mean, we can expound on the kingdoms kingdoms of glory,

Right? That there are different degrees or kingdoms or however you want to say it. And if you ask me, how do I know it's true? What if I said an apostle taught it and I have faith? You probably would give me a hard time about it. But you're willing to give first century Christians who were in the same circumstance grace for it. I don't know why.

Can you elaborate when you mean by what you just said? I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. You're quoting first Corinthians 15. So what what are you trying to say?

We have we have modern-day revelation that teaches more about what he was talking about.

Okay. So, how would I know then if what your modern-day revelation of any apostle or prophet was teaching was accurate or not based on looking at first Corinthians 15?

Well, I'm not saying it has to be related to 1 Corinthians 15.

You brought it up. So, I have it on the screen. So, how how could we test any apostle or prophet with anything if they have new revelation pertaining to 1 Corinthians 15? How would we examine it?

In the same way that Paul that you did it with Paul, he's an apostle and you have faith.

Couldn't we actually go to the actual text that someone's claiming they have a new revelation of?

Sure. Yeah. DNC 76.

Okay. So, what does that say?

It says that there are different degrees in heaven. Celestial, terrestrial, celestial.

So, three heavens, right?

Sure.

Okay. And where are they basing that information off of?

They receive revelation from God, just like Paul did. And is that off of is that off is that I'm just asking the clarification. Isn't that coming from 1 Corinthians 15?

What probably happened is they probably read that and asked God some questions about it, and he revealed it to them. The issue with this, and I don't know exactly where you're going with this.

Just help me out. Am I right though? Isn't that the three heavens view perspective of as a Latter-day Saint? Is that not based off 1 Corinthians 15 as well?

Um, not necessarily. It's our position would be it's pro this is probably what he's talking about. I mean, he says there's

I've never heard it being not being this. That's why I'm asking you. So when I've LDS people talk about it, talk about these three heavens, it's always first Corinthians 15.

Well, it's because they're trying to appeal to your standard, and I don't do that.

So you think when this new revelation of three heavens that was something completely isolated and not directly related to 1 Corinthians 15?

I I believe it was connected for sure. Yeah. He's saying

So if it's connected, all I'm trying to say is could we not go to the actual text, Hayden, and see what Apostle Paul teach? Is this guy over here, this apostle claiming new revelation? Is there a way to validate that based off what we know Paul taught?

Well, if you look at the verses, he talks about celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies.

Sure, I have it on the screen. Yeah.

Yeah. And then he says, "So also is the resurrection of the dead." That's part of DNC 76, like that concept that we are resurrected in different states of bodies.

Yeah. So we would say DNC 76 is is essentially an expansion, a greater understanding of what Paul because he does obviously go into all the details here. But we would say because an apostle with authority reveals it. Now, I will admit, is DNC DNC 76 falsifiable? Absolutely not. But in the same way that this is not falsifiable, right? One of the issues that Protestants get into when they talk to Latter-day Saints is they start acting like Jews. They start arguing like Jews and they start saying, "We have our correct interpretation of scripture. We have our canon or our scriptures." Like they killed the prophets because they said that, "No, you're contradicting what our understanding of scripture is." And you guys are killing us. Well, not all of you are killing us.

Can I ask one quick question? You said Dr. Covenant 76, right?

Yeah.

What was the exact reference? So, I just want to go look it up while you're talking. Go ahead.

It's the I mean, it's the whole chapter, but DNC 76. Um, I can find the exact verses that talk about this.

I just want to be able to read it directly what you're citing. I I want to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, this is for those particular. Let me just go up celestial.

Uh, let's see here. 76. If you just search celestial verse uh 70 71 72 down to 78, all the way down to actually probably towards the bottom. This is a this is a shared actually it's really interesting. This is a shared vision between Sydney Ridden and Joseph Smith. They saw the same thing.

Okay. So I'm just want to check it out um just quickly. Says, "These are the bodies of the celestial whose glory is out of the sun. Even the glory of God, highest of all, glory of the sun, ferment." It seems, I just wanted to read it. When I read over here,

It seemed to be almost identical when we're looking at it right away from 1 Corinthians 15:40.

It's not identical, but it

No, it's not identical, but there's definitely some parallels.

Absolutely. Yeah, they're both

That would point to what Paul's teaching that you believe. Correct.

Yeah, I think they're both apostles. I I think Paul was alluding to this. I don't know to the extent to which he knew it or even understood it necessarily.

Okay. So, would it be safe to say just on what you were talking about a minute ago, and I'll I'll let you continue. I didn't mean to interrupt you in that way.

No, no.

I'm just trying to say based on what you're looking over here, if you're believing this revelation that there's talking about three different types of heavens, correct?

Three kingdoms of glory is how we would say it.

Is it still technically still three heavens?

Yes. Um, depends on how you want to view the word heaven, right? Because we don't,

Normally when I've watched LDS official videos like at church saints and went to the website, they use the word heavens. So that's why I'm trying to

Three three heavens or degrees, I think is a fair way to say it.

Okay. Okay. Anyway, I just wanted to see what you're saying. Go ahead. Keep going.

Heaven is just a a non-early place probably close to God. So, so what I'm saying is that, and Kelly, by the way, I really appreciate you talking with me and sparring with me. I I really enjoy doing this type of stuff.

I'm actually, to be honest with you, I would like more chats with you if you're willing to do it. Um, I'm surprised you're I'm glad you saw me in the feed.

Yeah.

So, I'm actually surprised you came here.

I I would just I don't know how long you want to keep me on. I don't I don't have to stay much longer if you want to talk to somebody else, but I just have yet and I still don't think you've done it in this conversation. Well,

Ask it again. I'll try one more time.

Just how do you justify your standard? Right? Because your your standard is the 66 books of your Bible, which I respect and I think they're highly reliable. I think they're great, but you want to add another layer on it where God never said that they are the sole infallible rule of faith. They're the standard. So, right, this is this is I mean, I understand where it came. This is this is the Protestant Reformation doctrine when they cut themselves off from the magisterium. Actually, even early church fathers even taught this as well to conjure what Catholics think.

Early church fathers did not teach solos scriptura. That's just historically wrong.

Are you sure?

Uh yes. Yeah. And you'll be you'll be I don't think you want to say that on I don't think you want to allude that solos scriptura was around in the first few centuries.

Huh. Um, give me just one moment. If you give me just a moment of your time here. Give me just one moment. Um, let me just quote to you a few things here and you tell me what you think. Let me give you a few quotes. Okay, let me give you a few quotes.

This is from Irenaeus against heresies, uh, 3.1.1. We've learned from others the plan of our salvation through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they at one time in public and at later by the will of God handed down to us in the scriptures to be the ground and pillar of our faith. Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in his own dialect. What Peter and Paul preaching at Rome laid the foundation of the church after their departure. Mark, a disciple and interpreter of Peter, also wrote down to us writing preached by Peter. Luke also companion of Paul recorded. Tertullian says here, um, against practice. I'm just going to read you a couple quotes here. Give me a couple more here so you can see where I'm coming from. Tertullian says that we are your duty. are to adduce your proofs out of the scriptures as plainly as we do. When we prove to you what his word that he made his word a son to himself, all scripture attest to their clear existence and distinction with the trinity and furnish us with the rule of our faith. This is from a guy named Dionysius, uh, which is quoted from quote, we did not evade objections, but we endured as far as possible to hold and confirm the teachings which lay before us. If the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others. But on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely with our hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of holy scripture. Gregory of Nyssa down here at the bottom talked about u I won't read the whole thing. For if our customs avail for proof for the soundness, we too surely may have dense advance our prevailing custom. And if they reject this, we are surely not bound to follow theirs. Let the inspired scripture then be our umpire. The vote of truth will surely be given to those who dogmas are found to agree with divine words. And just two more for the sake of time. Uh, here from Cyril of Jerusalem, quote, catechetical lectures, uh, 4.17. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without holy scriptures. Nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility, artificial speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, not. Give not credence, not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the divine scriptures. For the salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but demonstration, the holy scriptures. And lastly, Basil the Great. Enjoying as you do the consolation of the holy scriptures, you stand in need neither my assistance nor anyone anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right. My point is, it is true on one hand, this was not directly universal, but when often more or less, not necessarily Latter-day Saints, but normally Roman Catholic and Orthodox will claim this was not true. They relied heavily on traditions. That is true to some extent, but they also had many people who went to scripture for their authority. I I think the those are all great, by the way, and those don't prove sola scriptura by any stretch of the imagination. I think the

Well, just all of them said you got to go to scripture for anything you believe. That's what they claimed.

That's fine. I don't I don't have a problem with them. Yeah.

That's not sola scriptura.

What do you think sola scriptura is?

So, sola scriptura is the idea that the that the 66 books that you hold today are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice for Christians. None of those quotes said that. I don't have a problem with them having a high view of scripture. We have a high view of scripture as well. But the irony, I think of all this, Can I say one last thing? The irony about all this is that you're talking about traditions and how I'm assuming you don't hold the tradition as infallible, and I I don't either. I don't hold any sources infallible as far as humans touch it. I think that's the most reasonable position. The issue with all this though is that your canon is established by tradition.

Established by eyewitnesses that actually people who knew

Apostles. That's not true.

Well, like I said, church history, people knew the

When was when was your canon established?

So, like I said before, Hayden,

They weren't eyewitnesses. You're just

Canon came later in the 300s.

This this gets into a whole historical narrative of the church history of why they did what they did. Who had the authority to establish the canon.

But just hear me out for a second. Like I said before, you have the dedicay, you have numerous early church people who would have been disciples of the apostles. They knew them firsthand, gave credibility.

Not not in late 300 AD when the canon was established. Those guys,

Like I said, first and second century, people who would have known them early on. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Who talked about these things, right? Talked about these things. And we know that there were Christians early on that would like I said, all the quoted of the New Testament, like I need to say the number one more time because that's such a huge number. 36,289 times we see early church fathers before there was any canon quoting the New Testament writings as authoritative and inspired as for teaching and doctrine before we even had a canon. That's very important. That's important. You need to get

No, I agree with that. But I agree with that. But that doesn't prove that the Bible that you hold today is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice for Christians. You have to leap to that with no evidence at all. It's a presupposition.

Here's a question I I've asked and I've I've talked to respectfully a lot of Mormons over the years since the early 1990s. And I've asked a question openly honestly in what you're what we're both talking about divine revelation. Right. So you believe that God can speak to us divinely, as do I. I really do. I really do. The question I've asked before, let me ask you this question, Hayden. This is completely a new question, but related. You believe the Holy Spirit is leading and guiding you today for what you believe to be true. Correct.

Sure.

I believe the Holy Spirit. I prayed about the Book of Mormon. I prayed about Joseph Smith many years ago. I honestly did. I really did. And I believe the Holy Spirit told me, "No, that's false. That's not true." So, you have the Holy Spirit. You claim is telling you this is true for you. I have the Holy Spirit's telling me, "No, that's false." Hayden, now we're at an impass. What do we do?

You look at the evidence. You can't prove your faith or religion, right? Our our base theological claims, most of them anyway, are very unfalsifiable. I don't And it's here's my answer. It's in the same way that you would settle a dispute amongst Christians on Arminianism versus Calvinism. Like if the spirit's teaching you C are you are you reformed in your theology?

I am not. I I would be you you might chuckle, maybe you might get my joke. Uh, depending upon what side of the bed I wake up, I would consider myself a calminian or an arvinist. I believe there's some balance to both perspectives.

Okay. And you believe the spirit's leading you to one or the other. And you might have another person who's leading

I wouldn't say directly the spirit. I believe biblically speaking, that's where I would

Oh. You don't believe the spirit leads leads? Don't claim divine inspiration for either side. No.

Interesting. Okay. So, you don't believe God's guiding you to a correct understanding of the biblical text.

So, let me reward it so you understand. So, I believe in my life, I do believe the Holy Spirit leads and guides me. I don't proclaim uh pronounce divine inspiration or proclamation on say something like that of Calvinism or Arminianism because there are scriptures at times that can demonstrate both points of view.

But can God? Well, okay, you if you believe the Bible's infallible, do you believe the Bible's clear? Do you believe God can speak clearly?

I do, but it's kind of interesting, Hayden. I've asked you a question just a minute ago about

If if your faith as an Latter-day Saint, you believe Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon and your faith is true, and you believe the Holy Spirit's confirmed that to you. I've prayed and I actually say this with act real sincerity because people sometimes haven't done this. I actually prayed this years ago and I believe the Holy Spirit told me the answer is no. Don't go there. They're not truly Christian. So if you have the Holy Spirit, you believe testifying to you. I have the Holy Spirit saying no. All that I'm saying to you, Hayden, is how do we then go from there? What do we do?

You Well, if you get down to the base and we both are genuinely convinced that God is telling us different things, I'm not sure there's anywhere to go. In the same way, let's say, okay, let me just give you an example. I know I can't bring it back to this because it really does apply. Let's say we're in the first century with Paul. You believe Paul is a prophet, and you have a Jew next to you who says, "No, God's telling me that Paul's from the devil." Where do you go from there? It's the same scenario. And it's like, you your faith or your revelation or witness or whatever you want to call it. You can't give that to somebody else. That's like the most fundamental form of knowledge.

If you believe God can communicate to you. You can bear testimony to them or try to convince them.

But you can't prove it to them. And so, we all have that issue. In the same way, how do you prove to me that the Bible's infallible? Where do we God told me it's not, and God told you it is. Where do you go from there?

So, here's what I want to give you an answer and what I was asking the question. So, Joseph Smith actually gave the answer to the question because I asked you a second ago, how will I know if Joseph Smith is a true prophet, Book of Mormon, what he's teaching is true or false. Right? This is again the King Flet discourse, and this is exact. So, do you agree this is not scripture for us?

I agree. This is what Joseph Smith preached and taught. That's recorded, and I don't know of any LDS authority that says this is not true.

Well, you know what LDS authorities do say is that this is not actually Joseph's words. It's not a journal he's writing. This is a speech he gave like two months before he died. We had four scribes who were doing their best hand.

Four different accounts. I know that. What I'm trying to share with you right now is

Do LDS apostles or prophets say that this information is not trustworthy?

I think the church's position is we don't exactly know there's

So then so it's kind of funny though, is I use the word funny not to be disrespectful.

Oh no, I understand what you're saying.

When I when I look at um, let me show you what I mean. This is just a couple sources.

I'll just show you. So when I look at sources like this, presidents often

Church many of these gospel principles, do you know what they quote

For teaching?

I'm okay with them quoting whatever they

Quote Joseph Smith's King Flet discourse.

And do they quote the part that you're quoting?

They've quoted I will go back to the beginning, right, the next chapter. They literally quote that. So, let me just finish the quote here just before that, what Joseph Smith says. "I will prove that the world is wrong by showing what God is. I'm going to inquire after God. I want you all to know him. Be familiar with him. If I'm bringing to you a knowledge of him, all persecutions against me ought to cease. You will then know I am his servant speaking with authority." So, he's going to prove something. Now, what's interesting is if you keep reading this story, what does he say? He says here, I just want to make sure I don't I don't want to misquote it. Where did it go? He says right here, "We've imagined, and this is quoted in the publication of the LDS, we've imagined, suppose God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea. Take away the veils that you may see. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for certainly certainty the character of God and to know that we may converse with him as one man converse with another, that he was once a man like us. Yeah, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwell on earth the same Jesus Christ did. I will show it to you from the Bible."

Can can I ask you one question about that? You may

What do you do with the scripture? Now you you know that this is obviously even debated amongst Latter-day Saints, right? There are some who take different positions on what Joseph meant here. Unfortunately, he didn't live long enough to be able to clarify himself. So my my question for you is uh oh, I just lost my train of thought. Uh, let's see here.

Would you like to table this conversation and

No, I do have I do have other people.

No. Uh, let me think. Sorry, it was a really good question. Um, oh shoot. Um, spacing. Yeah, we can we can

We can talk. I've really enjoyed talking with you. I really do mean that, Hayden. I really do.

Yeah, no, I talk. I think it's great.

Yeah. I I will say though that I do Oh. Oh, here's my question. I remember it. What do you do with the verse? Because this is something that we talk about as Latter-day Saints amongst ourselves. What do you do with the verse when Jesus says he only can do the things which he saw his father do? It would be in accordance to what he came with the mission as he was sent by the father, and he spoke the very words of the father. He did the very deeds of the father. And so when he was here, he says, "I my father, my my father's John 5, my father's working, I'm working." He says, "I and my father are one." We would see different places. I believe when you talk about that, that they would be in alignment in unity with what the father would teach or indicate to be understood.

It says what the father what the father does. I can't remember. Maybe we should look at the verse.

John chapter 5. I know exactly where it is.

Yeah, let's look at it. I think this is so interesting. And I'm not claiming a part. This is not a gotcha. But this is one that we even debate.

Right.

Let's see. Father do.

So John chapter 5. just to be clear. So when I was sharing what I was sharing before,

Okay.

Just to be clear. So when we're talking about the question um or sorry, when it was over here,

John.

All that I was trying to share was is Joseph Smith makes the claim that he's going to teach something and he's going to claim it and back it up. He said by the Bible. That was my whole point answering your question before.

Okay. Okay. You want to know

John. So here's John 5.

19.

And I think it's uh 19 right here. So yeah. So it says, "Then Jesus answered and said them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing himself, but what he seeth the Father what he seeth the Father do. For whatever things soever he does, these also these also does the Son likewise."

Yeah. So I'm not claiming a correct interpretation of this, and our church doesn't have an official interpretation. Some Latter-day Saints would say, and they would they would try to back up Joseph by saying the f if the son can only do the things which he saw the father do, which is what he's saying right here, then that comes up with an issue that wait, is that saying the father has done the things that the son is doing? Logically, we would say yes, and so they would use that, and that's when Joseph goes on to say God was once a man and things like that. And so at the base of it, I will say, uh, you may have questions or disagreements with it, but I think people need to understand that there's only issues with the King Flet discourse if you presuppose a particular theology before critiquing it, which I understand your position. I understand it. I see how it doesn't fit in your theology. I understand it.

And and you also know that there have been many LDS prophets who have spoken of like, you know, Lorenzo Snow, Spencer Kimball, Gordon B. Hinckley, many others who affirm

The King Plet discourse of what there is. Here's going back.

They affirm principles taught in it for sure.

No, they affirm that God was once a man, men could become gods. As man is, man, as God is

As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become. That's a direct quote from Lorenzo Snow.

Yeah, I'd agree with that. DNC 132 talks about how we can become gods.

So, back to John 5 though, on the word doing, we get the context of what what is Jesus talking about? Well, we see that Jesus healed on the Sabbath, and the Jews did not like that. And it says therefore in 16, the Jews wanted to persecute Jesus, ought to slay him. They done the thing on the Sabbath. Jesus answered them, "My father worketh here too." Wonderful King James. I love it. And I work. Therefore, the Jews ought to sought to kill him because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, was also calling God his own father, making himself equal with God. So when Jesus then gives these responses, talks about seeing or doing what the father does, in context here, it had to do with the issue of healing that he said the father was already doing. So we always want to see things in their proper context. In verse 20, the father loveth the son, showeth all things that he himself does, and he will do greater works than these that you may marvel. So what I would say to you, Hayden, uh, respectfully, is when we see Jesus make these kind of statements, "I do nothing in my own initiative. I speak the very words of the father."

"I can only do the things that I see the father do."

That's

He's doing things in unison with the father. They're together, one together. This would in no way, which some LDS have claimed, which this is what Joseph had tried to prove in the King Flet discourse, that somehow God the Father was once a man who now Jesus Christ has following his footsteps doing the exact same thing that he saw his father do, which mean the father so just hypothetically, just listening, listen, follow the logic. That would mean the father was once a son

Who he would have also been most likely then doing what his father did, and there's this endless progression. This is where we get this issue of plurality of gods, you know that. So there's a lot of problems when you look at it from that point of view, reading into the scriptures that interpretation, which is not supported.

Okay. But there so there's two issues here. The only reason you'd have a pro you'd have a problem with that interpretation, which I'm okay with actually, is if you presuppose your own. Like I understand they're incompatible. I understand that. The other issue, the the issue you're going to run into though, is in order to presuppose your worldview on the nature of God or your position on the nature of God is to use non-biblical sources. That's why we call you creedal Christians because your your view of the nature of God does not line up with the biblical text. The consubstantiation of the Father and Son is not in the biblical text. It didn't come until three centuries afterwards.

When you use that terminology, consubstantiation, what does that mean to you?

The one being, three persons of the same substance. Yeah. Homoousios is the Greek word that they use, I think in Constantinople, to clarify that.

So when it says in Hebrews 1:3 that Christ is the hypostasis correctar, which means of the very nature, essence.

Sure.

One with the Father, same substance. That's a literal Greek.

It doesn't say it does. No.

You look up the word, it has the definition substance. I've looked up Greek scholars.

It doesn't. And we can look it up together if you'd like to.

The nowhere in the biblical text does it say they share of the same substance. I do believe they share a nature.

They are God.

Yeah.

But nowhere in the biblical text does it say that they are the same being. That that's a later

No, that does say the same being. That's not what I just said. It said nature.

To be of the Well, I I agree with that. I think they are of the same nature, but

Nature, substance, essence. Watch. So here's uh some there's some my other slides here. So here's one here. This is what's called a BDAG. This is what Hebrews 1:3. BDAG is one of the top sources for Greek. The essential basic structure, nature of entity, substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. Um, here as well, another source, um, James Swanson, biblical Greek scholar says here, substance, nature, essence. So look, I'm only showing you that what I'm claiming has backing to what I'm claiming.

I I for every quote you can show me that says they are of the same sub substance, I could show you 20 biblical scholars.

Go for it.

That's not the case. I don't have off top of my head. I'd have to get them for them for you.

You bring me 20, I'll bring you 200. How's that?

Well, listen.

Yeah.

Listen, we we've man, we've covered a lot of topics, Hayden. Um,

Can I give one last thing on the Trinity and then then I'll let you go? Is that okay?

If it's quick, because you did mention you were gonna go big, and now I got a bunch of people in the background, but I but also I'm again, you're you were tagged, and I wanted you to come here. So, first off, thank you for coming.

Yeah, thanks for having me. This has been fun.

All right. This is my position on the Trinity. The reason you get the Trinity is because you begin to have a problem in the early church when the early church fathers want to accept hard monotheism and combine that with something called perfect being theology, which is the idea that God by nature, by default, is the greatest conceivable being. It's it's the Hellenization of early Christians, which adopted the Neoplatonism Greek philosophy and metaphysics in order to make sense and to app make sense of the biblical text because they had an issue because Jesus is God, and then he comes and says he has a God, and that's two gods. So they had to figure out how can we be hard monotheists and how can there only be one God if Jesus is God and if the Father is God. And so they turn God into this immaterial, timeless, spaceless, immutable, impassible, simple being that is simply not in the biblical text. For anyone watching, just go look up what is Neoplatonism, and you'll see that.

It's essentially what was adopted, the non-biblical principles that were adopted by the early church to make sense of the oneness of God. Because they had a problem, and you can't blame them, 'cause they didn't have apostles to correct them. All the apostles were dead. They denied public revelation, and so they debated, and they came up with a solution that's called the Trinity.

Okay, let me leave you with something as well. Um, this is from the teachings of presence of the book I just held up my hand, which I also got this from the LDS website. Um, this is on page 42. Let me just read a couple things to you, and let's see if you agree. It says, "The Articles of Faith: We believe in one God, the eternal Father, Son, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost." Joseph Smith taught the following in 1843, later recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 13:22: "Father has a body of flesh and bones, tangible as man. Son, Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but his person is spirit. We know it. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." Here's what I want to ask you. Is number the third part here, "I've always declared God to be a distinct person, Jesus Christ a separate distinct person from the Father, and the Holy Ghost with distinct personage and spirit. These three constitute three distinct personages and three gods." Do you agree with that?

I don't know if that's exactly true. I don't know of all the quotes from Joseph, or that are attributed to Joseph. I do know that early on, he didn't know or believe, or it wasn't revealed that God had a body of flesh and bones. That was revealed later.

He actually, um, said, let me just find it here so you can see it. He made a very interesting statement in the same source here. This is, uh, the History of the Church. They were just quoting the History of the Church. It was noted on the side, on the little, there on the, uh, the website noted that was the History of the Church, volume six. Here's what it says on page 474. Um, and I want to make sure, yeah, we can see. Okay. This is what he said: "Joseph, I will preach on the plurality of gods. I have selected this text for that expressed purpose. I wish to declare, and I have always and all congregations have preached on the subject of the deity. It has been the plurality of gods. It has been preached by the elders for 15 years. I have always declared God to be a distinct person, Jesus Christ a separate distinct person from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost a distinct person is in the spirit. These three constitute three distinct persons and three gods."

Now, what's interesting here, it says, "I and the elders are preaching for 15 years, and this is in 1844." That takes you back to 1829. What do you think about that?

What's your question? Are you saying there's a discrepancy in what, and when he taught?

According to Joseph Smith, the plurality of gods has been taught from 1829. It wasn't something that came all of a sudden out of the blue. It was something he was taught from the very beginning.

We don't, I don't have any problem saying that. Well, 1829 was the year of the Book of Mormon, which I'm okay with. Um, I'd have to look at sources. Are you saying that he didn't always teach that? Help me understand what you're saying.

No, no. He says he's always taught it. So, my point here is, even when we see about this King Follett discourse in 1844, according to Joseph Smith, he's always been teaching the plurality of gods.

Well, 1829. That's what he's claiming.

Sure. Yeah. I don't have a problem saying that he taught henotheism over hard monotheism. I don't have an issue with that at all.

Just like the Jews. Just like the Jews were henotheists, right? You like, you don't believe that the biblical authors believed that there was only one divine being.

When you use the word "being," are you saying one individual person?

I, I mean, call it gods, right? Elohim.

Because you can look up the word "being" online, and it can mean person, or it can mean existence. If we're talking about the word existence, the biblical definition, or even just a normal dictionary, then yes, there's always been one God in existence biblically speaking, who has been revealed through the Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

Well, there are lots of different gods in the Old Testament that interact with each other.

False gods.

Well, they're still gods. They may not be worthy of worship, but they're still gods, and that's how the authors treat them. So, if they're false gods and they're not the one true God, they would then be demonic gods.

I, I don't think. Well, that's that's an anachronism to say that the biblical authors of the Old Testament thought that they were demonic gods is totally out of place, and they didn't, they didn't think that way about them.

So, what is, so define a false god then? If it's, if one is not a true god?

A god that you, a god that, God that you shouldn't worship.

And wouldn't that be demonic?

Not necessarily. Not to the biblical authors.

Tell me, tell me a false god that's not demonic that it's okay.

Well, it depends what you mean by demonic, because I think that word means something different now than it may have meant. I don't even know how they would have felt about that word in Old Testament times. Like, for example,

According to the Old Testament commandments, if one was caught in idolatry,

Well,

which is the worship of idols, other gods, they would be stoned to death.

Yeah. But you know that your concept of the devil today was not held by the

How do you know? How do you know what I know? Tell me what I know.

I'm, I'm saying if you know anything about the Old Testament, you know that they don't believe in Satan, the devil, like you do today. That was a later development that is non-existent in the Old Testament. Okay.

So, to say that the false gods are demonic, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. We're talking. So, I'm, I'm assuming when I use language, because you claim to be a Christian, which I do not believe Mormons are. When I use this type of terminology, I'm speaking from now from a point of a New Testament point of view. When we're talking about false gods, true gods, there's only one true God. And if there are others, they're not true God, by

What do you mean by true God? If you mean God is

I'm just trying to tell you by logical deduction, if one is not true, they're false. And if they're false gods, and we're supposed to be careful of idols and idolatry, that would be then demonic. Can you not agree with that?

I'm, the issue is you're dealing with, you're committing presentism, which is you're forcing your 2025 view of theology.

I'm going, what the scriptures would teach, my friend.

Well, the scriptures don't teach the Trinity. First of all.

Yes, it does. Yes, it does.

Okay. Where, where does the Bible teach that the Father and Son and Spirit are the same being?

So, I've already quoted a couple places about how the

And those words don't mean that in any respectable scholar.

I just gave you the BAG. That's the top of the cream of the crop. Well, I'm okay with saying they're the same nature, but

I don't want to be using the word like busted or debunked, but you keep quoting things, and I keep refuting you. I've given you top scholarly sources of what I've quoted you so far. I should have, I should have came prepared.

Of Sola Scriptura, from church fathers that taught by going by the scriptural.

That's not Sola Scriptura. If they said you don't get any doctrine other than from the scriptures, what is?

Wait, you believe you only get doctrine from the scriptures? That's not Sola Scriptura either.

Sola Scriptura. I don't know where you got your definition from. Sola Scriptura is the view that the highest ultimate authority

Yes.

Inspired for truth and doctrine to know right from wrong.

Yes.

Is the scriptures. That's how if I know

Is the 66

If I know Joseph is a true or false prophet, how do I do it? Well, I can pray, and you can pray. We'll flip a quarter. Okay. Now, what do we do? We go to the word of God. Just like what Joseph Smith said, I'll prove what I'm claiming. He said by

Realize though that that's what he claimed.

Okay. Let me, let me grant to you. I don't think it's true, but just for the sake of argument, let me grant to you that the first even 2nd century church fathers believed in Sola Scriptura.

I'm saying some of them, not all of them, just saying it was still relevant then when people say they didn't teach that.

Okay.

There were those who were of name and reputation that did say that.

Okay. But your issue is they were not referencing the canon that you have today. And my, my critique is

How do you know that? How do you know? You didn't even know what the quotes I just quoted. You don't know that.

Because the canon didn't exist when they were saying those things.

What did they quote? They quoted the Old Testament. They quoted the prophets. They quoted the apostles.

They didn't quote like, "Show me um, are they quoting the Book of Revelation?"

Yeah.

Where are they, where are they saying that? Well, I, I should say

Literally, I just said to you before, remember what I said?

They are every book of scripture.

99.99% literally of what we have in our New Testament today. It's been estimated five to 10 verses that weren't directly referenced in the first few. So, look at your New Testament and just say, take out five verses or whatever it may be.

Let me ask you a question.

The rest of it was quoted.

Were there other, were there other scripture that was quoted as well?

No.

There was no, not not New Testament.

You don't think the Apocrypha?

The Gospel of Barnabas, or they didn't quote, you know, the Gospel of Mary, or the Gospel of, you know, Thomas. So, who had the? So, so, okay, we already went over this. Let's wrap up.

Well, I think this is the crux. This is the crux is that you can't justify your canon.

You keep going. I, I

Many people still here.

All right.

I want to say, let's have another chat. Let's chat another time.

All right. That way directly me and you and we could have, we here's my email. Um, is it easier for me to contact you, or do you want to contact me? Um, I can email you. Tell me what your email is.

So, it's really easy. BurrianPerspectiveApologetics@gmail.com.

Burrian Perspective.

Apologetics. The name of my channel. Brian Perspective Apologetics. Yeah.

Is it on your channel?

It actually is in like, what used to be called the About, or whatever. You just go click that. It'll be over there. Yeah.

Okay. Let me just, before you let me go, just 10 seconds. Let me make sure I have it.

Go check it over there. It's over there. Yep.

Okay. I have it. Okay. Why don't

So, why don't we end in a really good note, back and forth, good, good debate. Um, send me an email. We can try and set something up, um, on a particular topic. That way, we don't go all over the place, and have a, we'll, we'll come to agreement on a topic, and we'll have a good time.

Okay, sounds good. Thank you for having me on. Oh, hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey. Bring up. Hey. Woo.