Intense Debate With A Mormon

My disciples. I got, I got a bit of a jiggle neck. That's a joke, pastor. When we have the real message of truth, we cannot let somebody say they're speaking truth when they're not. Take an amazing journey to a place that will blow your mind and move your mind so you will never be the same again.

What's up guys? Welcome back to another episode of Apologia Radio. Coming at you guys from Phoenix, Arizona right now from Apologia Studios. Joined in studio today with some by some very special guests right now. If you guys want to get more, you can go to apologiaastudios.com. apologia studios.com and you can get more there. Television shows, radio shows, podcasts, and after shows and Apologia Academy. So, make sure you guys go there and check it out. Uh, grateful for you guys all to be with us right now live. Uh, we are doing a live stream today, Apologia Radio with our special guests and we encourage you if you're watching this right now to share this across your social media platforms and let everyone know.

So, I'll introduce our guests right now. One you know very, very well. Uh, he is Dr. James White uh with Alpha and Omega Ministries. You guys know him very, very well. Been on our show many, many times. Encourage you guys to go to amen.org to get more. Dr. White, welcome to the show.

Good to be here. And our very special guest who flew all the way out from Salt Lake City. Yeah. To be with us in Arizona. I got to ask just real fast, what's the difference in weather right now between Salt Lake and and Phoenix? Uh, Salt Lake feels beautiful right now and Phoenix feels like a sauna in in Hades. It's it's very good. It's It's very, very good.

So, uh, a special guest today from Salt Lake City. Uh, honored to have him with us today. We were able to get him out. I flew in, uh, yesterday and, uh, leaving actually turning back around this afternoon. And his name is Quu. Yes. Actually, you have a number of names to tell the truth, but Quu is one of them.

My I have a very long name, but uh I Yeah. Quu l um and um you uh I'm I I do the show three Mormons. However, uh I can't represent three Mormons just because the other hosts we we have different views on things. So, I'm here representing myself as a Latter-day Saint. Yes. Yeah. And we're great grateful to have you. Not a Mormon. Not anymore. In fact, what are you going to do with the name of the show? So, I want to call it Three Saints, but um that that seems too Catholic, but maybe that's a way to trick them into, you know, joining. But honestly, it just depends on, you know, what the further announcements are. If they say, "Hey, you know, if Mormon newsroom and Motab say that came really close to almost sounding like a revelation, the Lord impressed upon my my heart." That was well, he's the prophet. So, there you go. So, it's totally I think it was a serious and and important distinction because we're not Mormons. And the Book of Mormon has a beautiful passage or talks about, you know, the name of the church. And if it's named after Moses, it's Moses's church. So, we're not Mormon's church. You guys ain't going to be able to use any nicknames at all. It's just a shame. Well, it ain't going to change anything. I'll be But what do you do with mormon.org? Like, isn't that See, here's what I think. This is This is Qu's prediction. Okay. That is based off of nothing but myself. But, uh, they may change the name of it, but they'll keep the hyperlink. So, you just type in mormon.org, it'll just redirect you to whatever the new, right? So, we can just keep all those things. And that's just I think my prediction is two years from now, we'll be going Oh, that I remember that. Yeah, I forgot. Oh, yeah. And it'll be past because that's what happened right before the It happened before, right? Yeah, I did have them before.

Well, at any rate, so we had a little bit a little bit of interaction a couple of weeks ago where Dr. White and I responded to some of the comments made on the Three Mormons show. And so, as a result of that, we were able to make a connection. And I just want to say to you that I am very, very grateful uh for you being here. Um, I consider it an honor, but I also highly respect um someone uh like yourself uh traveling uh all the way to Phoenix to to come and to be on this show with with Christians who have critiqued what you have said. Um I I mean this truly and I say this often. I believe flattery is a sin. So I I want you to know how I feel about this. I think it's uh very respectable and and really a a glorious thing that you're willing to come all the way out here to be on the show with us to discuss these important issues because what I've tended to see over the last 20 years is a shift away from the kind of thing that you're willing to do, which is to engage with other believers and to get down to the mat and and and to talk about these things. I've seen a lot of the younger Mormons unwilling to do the sorts of courageous things that you're doing right now. So, even in the midst of my very, very violent disagreements with your theology, I want you to know that I have a great deal of respect and honor for you and and for the fact that you're here today.

So, well, thank you for uh letting me come on. And uh actually, I wanted to to touch on that just on on the the Latter-day Saints not wanting to talk sometimes with evangelicals. Um I actually talked about this right before I came and people want to know why. I think the the reason is uh people don't start off conversations in a reasonable way usually. So online if you'll see uh I'll have people who message and will be like hey listen you magic underwear wearing cultist why don't you and they go well I don't respond and they're like well why aren't you responding to me? So I think a lot of the times if people start out in a way that's just silly of course no one's going to want to have a dialogue. So, you have to start out with let's just talk. And um if I I think even in some of the comments sections of of the post about that were advertising this, some of the people were like saying some things that were kind of wacky. And I'm saying, well, that right there, that's usually why Latter-day Saints don't come and do these sort of shows. Social social media has poisoned everything.

But there has been a major change because I I started uh going out to the Mormon Temple before you were born. Um and uh the young men uh who were 13 or 14 years of age would come up to me and want to discuss Bible passages on the plurality of gods. Yeah. Uh that doesn't happen today. And there there were 3.7 million members back then, whole lot more now. I've seen a huge development and change in that time period that you couldn't possibly have seen. But um I've seen I've seen it. And if it makes you feel any any better being in the lion's den, I've been on KTKK radio in studio in Salt Lake City with a Mormon attorney as the host, two BYU professors across the table from me, and every caller was a Mormon. So, I I' I've done the same thing up in uh up in Salt Lake that you're doing.

Well, you know, I I think just comes down to two things. Well, one, generations are just different than each other. It's not like a It just people emphasize different things. But I don't know if I I fully agree because I'll talk to the people I know at BYU and I know most of my friends are young Latter-day Saints and we talk about plurality of gods. We talk about eternal progression, you know, God being exalted, things like that. I don't think it's gone away. We talked about on our show and it comes up probably every single day. So I at least in my experience in 2018 being a young Latter-day Saint and doing a show for um young Latter-day Saints, it comes up quite a bit. I don't think it's gone. Not at all. I'm not saying that the doctrine isn't gone. What I'm saying is that the discussion the discussion of it uh it's we used to literally have a line of people waiting to talk to us outside the general conference. Um you almost have to trip people to get them to talk with you anymore.

Well, that's the thing that's changed. I bet I bet if you if you went up next general conference and you you just you you weren't grouped in with the the crazy people with the the signs. That's that's sort of impossible to avoid. But if because they are there walking I go, "Oh, you're one of them. I'm there. I was there the first year they showed up. So I I we we had done it for 18 years. You've been you've been made weird bed fellows with them. Even though we've got nothing to do, even though they hate us actually more than they uh you guys, so we've had runins with them. But anyways, that's neither here nor there, Jeff. You're you're you're in charge."

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So So that what we wanted to do was do something we talked just a bit yesterday that would be beneficial for our hearers. So, uh, we we thought it'd be good to to leave aside the peripheral things, the the non-essential things and just focus in upon the core. So, Dr. White and I chatted a bit about, you know, what might that look like, what might we touch? And then when we spoke yesterday, you you talked about all the same things. Those are the main issues. So, the issues of authority, scripture, uh, the authority of scripture, uh, who is God? Um, how does someone come to know God? Uh, but all that obviously comes down to authority. What's your foundation? And so I think that we can probably try to circle around those as the main issues. Questions about God. Is God an exalted man who uh is a is a resurrected uh man uh who has a God before him? Who had a God before him? Is there potential for human beings uh to go through the process of exaltation and become gods and goddesses themselves? Uh is that what the Bible teaches? Is that anywhere close to the biblical definition of God and description of God? Is that how God's disclosed himself to us? And the other thing of course is the gospel itself. So I think we should probably start there at the the question of authority. Um, so I'll I'll let uh whoever wants to start maybe bring in the start of the discussion.

Yeah. Well uh let let me just uh put this on the table. We can go from there. Uh I'm looking at Isaiah 44:6. And there's two directions we can go from this. So let me just just put it out there. Um thus says Yahweh. Now I know that you have the quad over there. And so you've got the King James version of the Bible. I have the Hebrew in front of me at the moment. And uh the name Jehovah, of course, is L O R D in all caps in the in the King James version of the Bible. I'm sure you're aware of that. Um thus says Jehovah, the king of Israel, and his redeemer, Yahweh, uh Jehovah of Hosts, I am the first and I am the last and besides me there is no Elohim.

Now um we can go two directions with this. First is the consistent testimony of scripture to the fact that there is only one God, Yahweh Elohim. Uh that both those terms are used of one one uh deity 535 times as a joint name in the Old Testament. Um or we can go depending on what your personal perspective is as to whe uh after uh 2700 years uh these words would be authoritative to us. In other words um fundamental question of the um preservation of these words in the original language translation into the English language. Um are these do these words remain normative for the Christian uh in this age or is there an authority above these words? And u I think we can go either either direction. I think they're both fruitful and are both relevant to uh to the issue.

Yeah. Uh well, one I want to say you have a a voice like a nice cup of warm milk. It is it is very soothing. In other words, uh you fell asleep halfway through what I said. Okay. I I I I get it. I grew up doing radio actually. Okay. You've got from the time I was 16. Yeah. Very impressive. Um here's I think the issue isn't isn't translation. Um it isn't uh it isn't the transmission of it. I think that you're approaching it from a perspective of of middle ages European revisionist history of an ancient Seemetic culture. And that's that's an issue I see and I see that issue um from our evangelical brothers and sisters all the time. Um, it's very common to take passages in Isaiah and really all throughout the Old Testament and even some of the New Testament where you know, no God's beside me. Um, here, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord. Um, that Yeah. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. Is Yahweh Eloh ordered that the other day at Capri? There you go. Um but even like to see what you got when you ordered it. But even um so even you know in in in latter day scriptures hear oh you heavens and give ear oh you earth and rejoice the inhabitants thereof for the Lord is God beside him there is no savior. I think though the issue I see is that these scriptures are taken out of their ancient context. The reality is in in the same time period and in the surrounding cultures I can find I keep hitting this mic. I can find uh quotes from other religions that use this exact same language. And I'm sure you're both familiar with with a lot of Jewish scholarship that's very, very clear, especially in 2018, that the the godhead or the nature of God and and the idea of plurality of gods, the way we see it with monotheism, polytheism, the the mainline Christian view of that topic is not the view they had in the biblical era. It just isn't. Um I think a good example is that you know the uh the tale of Sunni from the middle kingdom. Uh this is about the pharaoh uh senorset. I hope I'm saying that right. The first he is a god without equal with none in existence preceding him. Um the great kairo himhim to ammon ra unique one like whom among the gods literally like whom of the gods. You are the sole one who made all that exists. One alone who made that which is single unique without his second. I mean, you can go on and on and on and you can find that the exact same language shown in the Bible of no gods beside me, before me or after me is the exact same language these very clearly polytheistic societies from the same time period used. That isn't a coincidence. They use the same language. And we know that the Jews of the Old Testament were not monotheists in the way that we see it today. Really, they just weren't.

Yeah, that's a very common mythology in scholarship, but it's a mythology that's based upon a fundamental rejection of what you believe is a Latter-day Saint. And that's what I find strange that people at BYU and things like that embrace our uh our forms of liberalism without recognizing that it's absolute poison to your fundamental belief in the Book of Mormon cover price because uh certainly Joseph Smith and the early leaders of the church did not embrace the kind of documentary hypothesis based idea that allows you to atomize the text of the Old Testament and in and say well sure there are there are some texts that sound monotheistic, but then you've got these over here and you can you don't have to take them as a whole. Uh that would end up destroying the reason, for example, why 17 chapters of the Book of Isaiah end up quoted almost verbatim from the King James version of the Bible in the Book of Mormon. That was not the argument of early of the early LDS church. They were not utilizing our German liberals as BYU is now. So, what has what has changed? And I would just simply respond that believing Christian scholarship has answered that unbelieving skeptical scholarship and points out that for example quotations from Egyptian lore where the gods are derived from the created order is has to be a completely different context than if you take seriously the Tanakh, the Torah, the Nevim and the Kimas as a whole. that what separates Yahweh from all the gods of the peoples is that he created all things. In fact, he says in in in Jeremiah chapter 10, if your God did not create the worlds and the heavens, then he will pass away from the worlds and the heavens. So there is a huge chasm between having a god who is the source and origin of all things and having a god that you're saying is highly exalted but came out of these things.

No. No. So we're I'm not saying he came out of those things. I'm saying the Egyptians did. Okay, great. Well, I I think there there's a bit of a misrepresentation. So, I'm not saying nor I think early Latter-day Saint leaders were saying that they're uh that these other gods um you know uh are even real or or that they were actual gods. I'm just saying that we know that.

Yeah. I wasn't saying that you were I was simply saying I don't understand why you would make reference because it's so important it's so important to do that because the quotes of the Bible when you look at them in their ancient context you see the exact language is used with surrounding cultures. So it isn't it is not a coincidence. You have to look at that and say okay well if they're saying it this way no gods before me and and we're saying these are monotheists but then these polytheists are saying the exact same thing. What's the issue here? Why are they all employing this language? What is the issue? And there's nothing wrong with using that argument at all. What is the issue? The the the issue, yeah, is that the biblical teaching is that Yahweh creates all things, whereas these other religions teach that their gods were derived from the creation itself.

I think that's a little I think that's offroad of the context of the quote itself. If you cuz you're I'm saying you're the idea. Okay, there are no other gods, only God alone. That's it. There's the only God that exists in the universes of universe. Psalm 96:5. Yeah. But we're saying, okay, if this is true in the in if if the if the ancient context of that is matches exactly the later European, what I call revisionist history of it, then why on earth are other societies quoting and using that same language if they are polytheist? We should see a big separation. And we know from history, no, no, I mean with those quotes, they would not employ that same language. And we know from history, like again, I say we know from history that the Jews of the Old Testament were not the monotheists in the American European sense of the word. They just weren't. Uh we happen to know that they believe that there is only one true God. They covenanted with one God, but they believed in multiple.

No, I believe that's completely wrong. I don't I guess that's where we have to disagree. Well, well, but but one of us can can allow all of the Old Testament scripture to speak as a harmony. The the the people that you are relying upon for this idea of inserting inserting polytheism into a monotheistic text do not believe that the Old Testament scriptures are consistent. Do you know what the Graphen theory is? I I'm assuming you're going to tell me. So, I'm ju just asking because it's fundamental basic. It's fundamentally basic to understanding Old Testament scholarship that you are relying upon right now. And see, I long long ago I went to Fuller Theological Seminary, which was way off to my left. I was much more conservative. Well, not not just left as in over there, the left coast, but theologically to the left. And so all of my Old Testament instruction was in this what you're quoting. Mhm. So, I've I've read I know what the arguments are and and that's why I said from the beginning I find it odd um that uh that Latter-day Saints would utilize this kind of stuff. And in fact, I will even make the assertion that I think it is the entrance of this worldview through BYU into the mainstream of Mormonism that is resulting in the major changes that we're seeing right now and will see in the future. I really think they I really think that's where where it's coming from, but

Those are three those are three different water balloons. But uh the first one is that again I'm I just have to disagree. I think the Old Testament you of course we can we can be textual and we can look at what it's saying and I think it makes a very, very clear obvious uh case that there is one God to us but ancient context the Jews did not deny the existence of several gods. They made a covenant with one similar to what we do in the temple. And I think that is verified by not only yes, you can find left-leaning Christian scholarship and right-leaning, but also the same in Judaism. We can find left-leaning Jewish scholarship and right-wing that confirm that this isn't just a Mormon conspiracy. It is very well laid out. And you know, you may have discovered it in your college days years and years ago. I don't know how old you are, probably 32, but you but the reality is just because you in college looked at it doesn't mean that it's completely cast out. It's it's very well documented that this is the historical case. And I would venture to say it's a fact, not a conspiracy.

You keep making the claim uh that it's just a it's a fact. And and I I'd like you to demonstrate that from the the text of the Bible. Can you demonstrate from the text of the Bible that the biblical God discloses himself as one God among a pantheon of gods and that he's part of some created order himself? That he's not from eternity into eternity. Can you demonstrate that from the text of God's word? Um, uh, one, yes. Two, I think there's an issue just with the question, though, because I I think I think it's somewhat bizarre to say, "All right, I want you to demonstrate this with a text and text alone, and don't use any context of

No, no, no. I I you made you've made several times you've made the claim that you can demonstrate that the biblical God falls into the same category as the Egyptian pantheon of gods." So, I'm just I don't believe that's not what I'm saying. He falls into the same kind of category that you're saying that you can have the same polytheism in the scriptures of the Old Testament that the Jews you said the Jews believe this. Yeah. Yeah. So the Jews believed in multiple gods. We have a record of what they believed what God We do. We have we have many records. Well, we have a record in in scripture. You do believe that that's scripture. Yes. Can you demonstrate from scripture that the biblical God has disclosed himself as one God among a pantheon of gods? I mean I think there's very, very strong arguments for the divine counsel. Psalms 82. Psalm. Okay. So, let's do that. So, you just you just pulled the text. Now, let's let's look. Let's let's flip to Psalms 82. You want to go ahead and show us that from the Hebrew?

Uh first, I would just point out the uh the straight statement uh of the psalter that I mentioned earlier. I didn't get a chance to read it, but Psalm 96:5, for all the gods of the peoples are idols, but Yahweh made the heavens. This is what I'm trying to point out and that is that the key element that that makes Yahweh distinct from the gods of the peoples. First of all, they're idols. They do not have any uh existence in and of themselves. But that is the fact that Yahweh made the heavens, right? He is the one who made all things. And uh I I I just think that it needs I I no matter where we end up, I'm I'm hoping uh that before we get too far that we'll be able to get an an an explanation for why it was that Yahweh through Jeremiah the prophet gave to the people in exile who themselves are they're surrounded by people who do believe in the plurality of gods. And they do believe that their gods came forth out of the created order. Notice what is then said. And hopefully, and I'll let you go to Psalm 82 from here, but it says, "But Yahweh is the true God, not a true God, the true God. He is the living God, the everlasting king. At his wrath, the earthquakes and nations cannot endure his indignation. Thus you shall say to them. So this is what believers are to say to polytheists. The gods that did not make the heavens and the earth will perish from the earth and from under the heavens. Now what's fascinating is that in the original language this changes from Hebrew to Aramaic when it says thus you shall say to them changes language because that's the language of the people to whom they're going to be speaking. So what's amazing is here God in his condescension through the prophet gives to his people the very words they're to say to the surrounding uh the people that are inviting them to the worship of other gods. The gods that did not make the heavens and the earth will perish from the earth from under the heavens. Um I believe that this is going to be consistent with everything else. And I believe on the basis of Jesus Christ's testimony. I believe I believe it's consistent.

Here's the issue. We have the false idols and the false gods of the Old Testament. However, we also have in the ancient context of the Bible the Jews believing in several gods and having a covenant with Yahweh alone. So if you have to work with both, you can't just pick one or the other. You have to work with both. Even in the liberal perspective on that.

Oh, hey. Well, well, let's not say it's a liberal perspective. I don't I don't think I think we'll find the people who who affirm that are not theologically liberal. That's I think that's a unfair, you know, stereotype to place on it. If however you want to describe it in that perspective, however, the people who promote that, do they or do they not say that those other gods were created by Yahweh? um the other gods in in in if you're talking about exalted beings, if you're talking about a heavenly council or anything else, those beings were created by Yahweh, right?

Well, of course, a heavenly father created them. What we call Yahweh, heavenly father created these. So, this is not talking about any beings that are themselves uncreated. Only Yahweh is uncreated. Well, and this gets into the how we're using the word gods because if you if you want to examine the divine council, he calls them gods, sons of gods, angels. I mean, you can really switch out whichever word you want to use. The the difference is we're talking about gods in the biblical sense of of the god who was walking in the garden of Eden, the god who who is a man, not the later very metaphysical god is an energy consciousness that's everywhere but isn't anywhere. we're talking about the actual God of of the Old Testament and New Testament. And so the fact that you can have a council of gods, a group of people sitting, if you will, is completely consistent and also opens up the door to the understanding that there are there were multiple deities that the Jews recognized group.

But the you keep saying you keep trying to limit this to covenanted with one. And yet uh three different passages now I've presented that base this view on the fact that Yahweh alone creates all things. You don't believe that Yahweh alone created all things.

Why don't I believe it? Uh because Elohim sent Jehovah Michael down to organize the earth. Mhm. So Yahweh didn't do that alone. Was he in company with Michael? Uh well here here's what I will say. I will say to one I think we we like to take the phrase of organize. We think that's more that more of an honest um sorry I will say I will say I cuz I'm not representing I'm representing me. I will take the position that uh God organized matter and organized things and created things. There was matter that was already there. We're not going with the X and the Hilo. I don't think that's biblical. I believe it most firmly is. That is one. That is one of our our major issues. Then I I want I need people to understand this. You do not believe that God can create matter. Um, I don't have an answer to that. I I I think it's over. You believe that God organized You believe that God organized pre-existing matter in the words of Joseph Smith. Um, I believe that God organized pre pre-existing matter and intelligence, not just because of Joseph Smith, but because that's what the Bible teaches. I think that's what the original Hebrew teaches very clearly. Not just Mormons believe, not just Latter-day Saints believe that. You'll find many many Jews who believe that exact same thing. Many Jews that also don't believe in the Messiahship of Jesus. So, I'm not really sure why that would be the the authority at that point.

Here. No. No. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Let's Yes. Well, they don't believe in Jesus cuz they're not Christians. If they believe in Jesus, they'd be Christians. If they were Jews. I I do think though it's fair to say that Jewish scholars are should be trusted in regards to the Talmud, the Old Testament. I think I think we can trust the Talmud came 600 years after I know I I said two books. I think you meant the Tanakh. No, no. Talmed and Old Testament. I'm I'm I'm saying multiple books. Jewish literature, Jewish scripture. I think we can trust Jewish scholars on that as well as Christian scholars. But you and I do not believe that the Old Testament exists separately from the New. So, we do not separate it out. The the view it has of who God is, what creation is has to be taken as Jesus taught us. It's consistent. Old and new together.

Yeah. I just think that you have it wrong about what Jesus taught. And that's totally fine cuz we're in different religions. Um, what was the original question? I feel like this kind of varied. Uh, well I So the way the way to test that though, the way to test that though is to go to the words of scripture and and Jesus. That's where this has to be rooted. Yes. You you agree with that? I agree. It has to be Well, it has to be rooted in scripture and context. Okay. No, we of course we would agree with that. I agree with you that any verse could be taken out of context and so used to to say anything at all. You said that in your debate with uh with Aaron. Um and I heard you say that you can anybody could take a verse out of the Bible and just make it say whatever they want. I I believe you'd be doing that with Psalm 82. But I just want to just remind you, you've from my perspective made some pretty audacious claims. And you haven't documented any of them yet. You've said things like the Jews, we just know, everybody knows that the Jews were polytheistic. I didn't. Well, no, no. I'm not saying that. I'm not saying polytheism because those two the word means many. It means many gods. Polytheism, monotheism, both, you know, terms created by Phil of Alexandria, which post date the New Testament. Anyway, the words have a particular etmology. I would say more monolyry. I wouldn't say polytheism. I would say it's more fair to say monolitry, recognition of multiple heavenly deities or beings, a covenant with Yahweh alone. I don't think that's controversial or audacious. I think that's just historical. Um, I think that the issue is you want to present it of okay, I want you to find exactly that exact exact wording in the Bible. And I say you can find the wording in the Bible, but you have to you can you can spar back and forth on what it means. So you have to look at the ancient context of it. And that overwhelmingly points to the fact that that this manrist idea is consistent with the Old Testament. But the but the over as as I need to bring us back to remind us the overwhelming testimony of the Old Testament is that it is Yahweh's uniqueness as the creator of all things that distinguishes him from all other gods that are themselves identified as abominations.

Well then how about let's let's go to Genesis. Okay. So the point is you did say you do not believe that Yahweh created he is Yahweh is not the origin and source of everything that exists in any universe anywhere according to your understanding of Mormonism. Is that a true statement? Um the statement I believe I'll say this that Yahweh is the creator. He can delegate responsibilities to other people much like um well not much like but a good comparison is a CEO is still the CEO of a company but he delegates responsibilities to other people. I think that's totally fine to do. It doesn't make him less of a creator who did that when he was a man. Um, oh, okay. Getting into to exaltation. Um, God being an exalted man. If that's your Well, I I if if I I I did say specifically all universes anywhere. And if he was once a man, he had he didn't just float through space. He lived upon a planet, which means that there are there is matter that had its origin outside of his power. And I think that's that's totally fine. Uh cuz you asked earlier. Just want to make sure we got you and I understand what we're talking about, but we got to we got to bring everybody else along with us. So, well, you asked you you said earlier, you said, "I don't believe that God can create matter, right?" Um, that's not true. Pre-existing, what we what we call esoteric doctrine. This this doctrine, we don't have much information about it. So, everything is sort of a suggested kind of theory. Um, we can we're very, very positive um that God is a man um a glorified heavenly man. Um, and I think there are multiple scriptures to support that. Um, but the the the debate of is God an exalted man? I think what we do is we jump straight to God is exalted man. Show me where it says he's an exalted man. But I think the better way to get there, the more reasonable way to get there is to say, okay, well, what do you know about Jesus Christ? He came to earth as a man and was resurrected and was exalted. I mean, by definition of the word, he became exalted, right? So, if that's the pattern that Christ took, Christ kept his body. The Bible says that God the Father is a man. Not an intangible spirit essence everywhere, but a man. The Bible says that the God the Father is a man. Yeah, it does. Um, so if God the Father is a man, uh, it's not unreasonable to say, well, was he exalted too like Christ? Maybe not the exact same method. I would love I'd love to know where it says that, but well, we can we can go there if you want.

Well, definitely we can, but but the what I want to make sure everyone understands. Um, you said it's esoteric doctrine. Yeah. So the king fallis course is esoteric doctrine even when Joseph Smith says it is the first principle of the gospel. It can be it can be the well one articles of faith um in the kingfall discourse if king articles of faith say the the first or um what is it the first principal ordinance of the gospel's faith in Jesus Christ. Um king fault discourse is a discourse a sermon given at a funeral um with new revelation and hyperbole but also true because I love the king fall discourse. I think it represents what we believe in a very firm, beautiful way. Most commonly cited uh words conference in outside of Yeah. Um, but so you call it esoteric. That that confuses me. How about the presidency's statement from 1916? Mhm. Because so far I'm a little confused. Well, esoteric doctrine just means it's not clearly stated in our cannon. Okay. So I'm not saying it's like a super like oh hippie kind of thing. It's more just if it isn't clearly stated in our canon, you can still be a good standing member of the church and not necessarily hold believe that wholeheartedly. Does that make sense? But so the first presidency can say that the father is Elohim and the son is Yahweh, Jehovah. Mhm. Do you believe that that is esoteric or is that definitional when the first presidency puts out an entire statement for it? Um well I mean you can use you can use Jehovah really to refer to the father. We just we we regulate them just for clarification purposes just to make it easier. Um, I God the Father is is the man, the son, Christ is the son. I'm not sure what's what's esoteric or controversial about that. I don't maybe I misunderstood what you were saying, but getting into it's just that the statement is made over and over in scripture that Yahweh is Elohim and he is the creator of anything that exists.

Well, first of all, Elohim can also be made plural, too. So, I mean, plural verbs. That's that's different. When God said, "Let us make man in our image after our likeness." And there there it is. But in many places, for example, Deuteronomy 4:35, to you it was shown that you might know that Jehovah, he is Elohim. There is none else beside him. Now, I see that as as problematic within, not even a little bit. Not even a little bit problematic. Um because what we said again, our latter day scriptures echo the exact same thing multiple times. Uh Lord is God, beside him there is no savior. Jesus is God. He is not God the father, but he is God. Right. of the Old Testament. Um, there we yes we do believe in and you can say three gods, father, son, and holy spirit. We don't believe that they're one. Um and and and and I'm not sure what word you use. We use the one in testimony and purpose and mission, but they are three. We can count one, two, three. That's just how math works. Yeah. Um, yeah, two of them you can identify as Jehovah. Well, Jehovah isn't the exact name. It's it's a it's a title given. That's a title. Yeah. Yahweh is Okay. All right. Well, I I think we know. I mean, well, I guess the point there, Dr. White was quoting, demonstrating from the text, Yahweh is Elohim, and you said you didn't have any problem with that. Yeah. Well, Elohim is also a title, but you do make distinction. This is not called desk. This it's it's it's just a desk. It's you do make distinction. You do make distinctions between them. It is Elohim that sends down Jehovah. Yeah. So, I said earlier, we make we make we make distinctions just to make it easier to we're not saying God's name exactly as Elohim. the way your name is James. We don't believe we're making distinctions. And in fact, actually, I believe you had a dialogue with Alma Alred where he said the same thing. So, this isn't like a new concept. This is pretty normal. But we agreed that the 1916 first presidency statement does not represent Joseph Smith's actual actual perspective. So, it's a Do you have the statement in front of you? Not in front of me, but uh because I think I mean it's in articles of faith by tell. Yeah. I mean we can we can reference and but if we don't have in front of us to look at exactly what it says I think but I think this is the important point for me and that is in Mormon theology in the core of Mormon theology Yahweh Elohim is represented as a physical being who as an embodied physical being a gendered embodied physical being sends down another embodied physical being that he identifies as Jehovah in company with another well angelic being Michael I'm not sure as spiritual body of some sort to organize the earth. So, getting to scripture, um, you can make an argument for that. However, it isn't laid out very, very clear. That's sort of a way we've told it, but that's not complete. That's not the exact This is exactly how it happened. We know for sure. That's not what we claim at all. That's not what Latter-day Saint theology claims. It's not what the restored gospel claims. It's a way to teach it in that sense, but it has never ever been claimed. This is the exact way it is. Period. That's how it is. That's not the reality. However, I would like to push back though because this idea that God being, you know, a man, even an exalted man, uh if if we do read the Bible, we do see how he's a man. Okay. We see how he's a man. I'd love to see. Please demonstrate it. Okay. Um and I think we also see that um him being a man is more clearly supported than him being a trinitarian spirit, which is what what my wonderful evangelical friends believe. But that that's in my opinion, and I mean this with kindness, that's not scriptural. That's that's a later idea. That's a mathematically impossible idea. It's just not true. And it can't be demonstrated with the scripture. Uh I was actually reading um a wonderful uh uh Stanford article last night about the Trinity and says, "Yeah, I mean, it isn't it isn't demonstrated in in the New Testament or the Old Testament clearly at all." Yeah. Has been done for hundreds of years. No, it hasn't. That's why the debates still go in. It has a Let me ask one question. Have Let me ask you one question. Please name the book on your shelf written by a Christian in history on the Trinity defending the Trinity. Name one book on your shelf. Name one book on my shelf. Um I offered to send it to you and and fun fact I would have taken it. I would if I could just point this out to you. Um I think the reason you're struggling for the name of a book is you made another audacious claim again that trinitarian doctrine is not scriptural. It's it's it's false. It can't be shown from the Bible. And I just wanted to say this humbly to you. I have Making Sense of God by Timothy Keller, by the way, for for a nice Protestant just in terms of a humble a nudge to you, okay? Not not a slam, but a nudge to you when you can't name a single book on your shelf written by a Christian in 2,000 years, and there are countless ones where they've done solid exesus from the text itself in context to in context to demonstrate. Let me just finish the thought to demonstrate the triune nature of God from the Old and New Testaments. And you make the kinds of claims that you have that it can't be done. Well, I think the reason you feel like it can't be done is cuz you've never actually even listened to a Christian really defending it. But I I imagine you do have books on your shelf written by people from the opposite perspective that want to ultimately insert the kinds of things that you're suggesting into the text, you know, Far Eastern studies and those sorts of things. So, I I'll say this. I do I have Making Sense of God by Timothy Keller. Um touches on this subject. Um I'd also like to say I was raised Protestant. So, um which means nothing. Uh well, according to your own test, according to your own testimony that I did listen to, you made it pretty clear. Wait, wait. You can't tell me about my own testimony in my life. We met today. We met today. Did you not record? Did you not record? No, we did. Um I yeah and I did listen to it. Yes, it's it's on YouTube and a couple places. And you made it very, very clear that uh doctrinal studies was not the central aspect of your interest in evangelical Christianity. I don't think that's what I said. Well, um and and coming from here here's what I'll say. Actually, the trinity has been something that it's been on my mind probably since fifth grade starting at Harvest Bible Church in Cypress, Texas. This has been

Something discussed a lot. I've read a lot about the Trinity. Um, then why have you misdefined it consistently? I don't think I have. Okay. You said that there's one being who's three beings. No, I didn't say that. You did on the video. We played it. We played it more than once. Did I or did Ian say it? No. You guys talk over each other. How, how's anybody? Because I feel like, uh, when I look back at my video, my episode with, with about the Trinity, um, I think I represent it very well. It's three persons and one God. Correct. Do you know what the difference between person and and being or nature is? Um, well, I know that was not brought up, right? Would you, would you admit you didn't bring it up? Um, I, I honestly, I have to go back and watch the episode. I How long ago was it? Oh, a year and a half ago we published it. Dude, I'm, I'm almost 56 years old. I remember a year and a half. James, we know you're old. Okay, come on. Come on, man. I remember. I have eyes and you have a face. Hey, you look, by the way, you look great for your age. I just want to say that's cuz he works out like a beast. I've always, I've always wanted to meet John Malkovich, so I feel like I'm getting close. Um, uh, but, um, let's get this over with then. Uh, I would, I would like to, to, Oh, I will, I will take your presence to the slide. Oh my god, look at these. I got the forgotten Trinity. I got Scripture Alone. I got Letters from. Oh, this is the controversial. Look at the front on that. That is, that is so Mormon missionary. It's like, I, I mean, it's even got the little thing that you use to keep your pants from getting caught in the chain of your bike. I mean, that's on the desk. That's, that is, that is designed. Thank you very much for these books. I will read them, um, because I think you're an incredibly smart man. I think you, uh, um, are very kind as well, and so I'm, I'm very thankful for these. Um, I would like to go back to the subject of the Trinity. We can say, oh, I misrepresented, I misrepresented, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Let's just talk about it. Okay. Because, me, from my perspective, when someone explains the Trinity, they say one God, three persons. Okay. So my question for you is, before the New Testament, during, during the Old Testament, um, Christ is, is the Trinity a duality or is it still a Trinity? Is it still three people? Three. Uh, you, you completely lost me. What do you mean, is it now? You mean, you lost me. Sorry. Um, before the New Testament, before Christ's earthly ministry, is the Trinity a Trinity or is it duality? No, of course it's Trinity. It's a Trinity. Okay. So where does the Son has eternally? Is he a spirit or is he, is he an embodied person in, in the Old Testament? In, uh, in the prologue of John, uh, if, if you'd like to, I will be as brief as I possibly can, but I, I like to be biblical in providing a response to this. And there are only a few places in scripture that shed light upon the pre-existence of Christ and the relationship he had with the Father. But if you look at the prologue of John, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Okay? John uses beautiful. Amen. Well, it, it, but what does that mean? Um, because in the beginning was the Word, the, the verb that is used there does not point to a point of origin. So as far back as you want to push, in the beginning, the Logos, the Word, is already in existence. And the same thing is true in the second phrase, "and the Word was prostontheon." So there is a personal relationship with whoever theon is, the God, and the Word was, as to his nature, theos, deity. Now, when we get to the end of the prologue in verse 18, we're told, "No one has seen God at any time. The unique God, but monoggon theos, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has executed him, he has made him known." So what are we told here? The Logos has eternally existed. The Logos has eternally existed in relationship with the Father. And then verse 14 tells us that the Logos entered into flesh. But there the verb changes. So as everywhere else with the Logos, it is eternal existence in the past. He came into physical existence at a point in time, at a point in history. Okay. Yes. That's the incarnation question, then. All right. That was, that was great. But to, to bring it, to bring it low for, for normal everyday people listening, most people can understand what I just said. I think that was clear. I, I, I, I know 100% they cannot. If you would have taken a study of everyone in America and they would listen to this, I've taught this to teenagers and they have no problems with it. I, well, I, I guarantee I taught it, I taught it more slowly than I just did, but okay. Well, well, anyway, so going with, uh, this, this, uh, this subject, so still a Trinity before the Old Testament. So I would ask to ask you, where does the Father's spirit end and where does the Son's spirit begin, end or begin? You're, you're putting them in space. There is, there is no spatiality to the. So it's just one, one spirit. We're not even talking about the word spirit. You have to distinguish. You must distinguish between the words person, okay, and being. Well, they almost have the exact same definition if you look at. No, they don't. Because. Well, well, let's, let's think about it this way. Um, if I pick up a rock, Mhm. and hit you with it, a rock has being. Yeah. But if you insult the rock, will the rock care? Uh, well, those are two different words. Being. Those are the two, those are not the same definition of being. Well, the point is that you and I, every single day, recognize the difference between being and person. We know that there's all sorts of things that exist. They have being, but they're not personal. Okay. So, you're saying that, so the being Christ before his ministry was not personal? No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm simply giving you a basic foundational attribute that you're missing in your, in your discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity. And that is, you and I are human beings, right? Yes, we are. Okay. But we are separate human beings. We share, we share a common humanity. But as persons, we are separate from one another. Now, is your being limited and finite? Um, no. No, you are an infinite being. Well, I believe I have a spirit which is eternal. That's, that's not what I meant. Are you, I don't think you can separate. Okay. You had to take an airplane to get here. So, you can't be infinite, right? You are limited in time. Well, my physicality is limited. My spirit is not. Uh, well, so is your spirit still in Provo? Um, well, if you want to talk about spirit, that's going to take six hours. That's not even. I'm just. It just seems strange to me that the point is that we are beings that are personal. God, God's being is unlike our being in that he is eternal, as he himself says. Okay. Well, let me, I, I want to ask this then. If, if, if the, getting back to the Trinity and just to make it, that's what I was getting to. The Trinity. No, but the Trinity, the Trinity is that there is one being of God, Yahweh, that is shared by three co-equal and co-eternal persons, Father, Son, Holy Spirit. And so the point is, my being cannot be shared by three persons because it's limited and finite. His being is infinite, eternal, and therefore can be and is revealed in scripture. I still think that's, that's a derail. I want to talk about the actual Trinity, not comparing it to anything else. I'm going to talk about the Trinity itself with no. Well, what about this, the actual Trinity itself? No, he's, I think, just to be fair here, in terms of, you know, making the claim that there's derailing going on. When you're asking for definitions and we're providing definitions, it, I don't think it's. Is that the definition of the Trinity? Well, when we're, you're asking questions about was there a Trinity before the Old Testament, and you're asking questions about God's, about spirits starting and stopping, you've got, we've, we've got to have a. Because you're saying Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Okay. And if Christ before the New Testament was not embodied, he was spirit. Is that fair to say? Not a spirit. I said spirit. Was he? He was spirit. I know. But there's a difference between spirit and a spirit. Limited or anything along those lines. He was not incarnated. So, so God is spirit. Spirit. Is that fair to say? Okay. Father is spirit. Holy Spirit spirit. Y. So, if you can make a distinction of three, then where does the first spirit end and the second spirit begin? Because if you can have three, then they must be divided. Ending and beginning is either a temporal or a physical reality. Both of which God denies for himself. No, it's, it's counting. It's math. You can't say one, two, three, and then say not one, two, three. It's not Father, Son, Spirit, one, two, three. So you're saying, you're saying God, three persons, one, two, three. Where does the first and the second first? They themselves distinguish themselves from each other. They make distinctions from one another. So if distinction, if there is distinction, then there must be division. No. Why? Well, the only way to distinct is to show that there's something different. There's a division of persons sharing one being. That's why I tried to lay the foundation, say I can't have that happen because my being is stuck in time and space and is finite. God's being isn't. I know. Okay. Well, well, that, that's fair to say. The issue, I, the distinction is in persons, not in being. There's, there's where this is the fundamental difference, and this is something that Joseph never understood. Well, uh, well, no one can understand it because it's. No, that's, that's my kids. My, my kids can understand it. And applying mathematics, applying mathematics to scriptural, uh, revelation. I mean, let's just, let's just, let's just be honest. We can turn that around and talk about the, uh, uh, number of gods and infinity and eternal regression. We can make all sorts of arguments like that. Talking about the Trinity right now. I still, to know, this is the issue I see, and I don't, and I'm sorry, my voice is getting a little loud. I don't mean, I don't mean to be rude. I'm a Texan, and we kind of get, you know, I'm fine with it. So again, I feel like it's, it's from my perspective, I feel it's disingenuous to say, um, to say it is all one completely one, but then say three. And I'm saying, if you can, if you can make a distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as spirits, premortal, earth ministry, then that is division. If you can make a distinguishing, this is something off from this, that's what division is, which means there's a partiality or partialism aspect of the Trinity. Here's, here's, here's what you're missing is that I met with some Jehovah's Witnesses a number of years ago, and they, they asked me, "Why do you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity?" And I said, "It's very simple. Uh, the Bible reveals that there is one true and eternal God, Yahweh." They were shocked that I said that. I think I might have said Jehovah to them because Jehovah's Witnesses freak out if you use anything other than Jehovah's, their language. So there is one God, Jehovah. The problem is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all identified as Jehovah in the New Testament. So in Isaiah 53, who lays our sins upon the Messiah? It's Jehovah that lays our sins upon. Well, who's the Messiah? Jesus. So there's the Father being identified as Jehovah. Jesus has identified Jehovah as a number of times in the New Testament. And the Spirit is the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of Jehovah. So if you have one God and three persons who are distinguished from one another, this was. Look, you've got to understand in your video, I don't, I don't know who said it, but someone said, "Well, I don't know why you'd be praying to yourself." That is a common misunderstanding. This was the Son in the incarnate state praying then. But you didn't correct him. Um, I'm not sure if I did. We, we, I mean, we filmed about 40 minutes worth and we cut it into six, seven to 10 minutes. So. Okay. Then you cut out his correction if you corrected him. But the point is, what was communicated. I don't, the show, what was communicated. I catch these things because I deal with, with, uh, with Muslims all around the world, and this is a common error that they make as well. Jesus was not praying. I make that error though, because I can go to Mark 13:32. "But of that day, that hour," speaking of the second coming, "no man knoweth, know not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." If there were all one God, how does a Son not know something the Father knows? It's exactly the argument the Muslims make, and I'll give you the exact same response I did from scripture. Jesus emptied himself of certain divine prerogatives so he might function as the Messiah. For example, we know from the Mount of Transfiguration that when Jesus is seen as he is, he is pure and bright. Yeah. If Jesus walked around Galilee blinding everybody, he couldn't have exactly functioned in this as the Messiah teaching the way he did and be betrayed by the Jews because they'd be falling down and worshiping him. So there were certain aspects of his divine character that were veiled, including his glory during his time upon earth for God's purposes to function as the Messiah. The knowledge of that time was one of the things that is veiled during that time period. Where is that clearly laid out in spell? Philippians chapter 2. It says right here, Philippians chapter 2, he says, um, "Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests but also for the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves which, um, uh, have this mind among yourselves which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, Jesus, though he was in the form of God, did not eternally count, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped or held on to, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men, and being found in the human, in human form, he humbled himself to become obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." I think that's also, I mean, they're employing some very great, beautiful poetic language there because he also says, "Before Abraham was, I am," and that's not saying nothing. Well, that's, you just quoted, I'm in Philippians 2. You just quoted John chapter 8, verse 58. Well, it's the New Testament. I can't, I can't quote different books. Well, you're the one that came in here sitting down first talking about how important context is. No, I'm talking about the words of Christ, like what Jesus is saying himself. Said, "I before Abraham was, I am," and so I'm saying this is, it's employing poetic language, not exact language. I'm saying it's employing poetic, poetic. Let me just point something out. This is actually, this is actually. No, let's, let's just, let's just do this even better, shall we? Do this even better. Uh, we did a little something for you. Yes. Um, sorry. Would you, would you, would you, um, here, let me help you out. Tell me which, uh, which, which verse you just read. Let me help you out. We did something for you, okay? Do, do you remember a message I sent you? Oh, you, me a Bible with my name written on it, didn't you? Um, this isn't just a Bible with your name on it. Oh, okay. Um, yes, it is not. I don't know if you, if you, if you notice this, but I have a very special Greek New Testament here. Mhm. And these are, these are handmade. These are hand-bound. And I had the same guy, Post Tenner Lux Bible Rebinding, really skilled guy, uh, do this just for you. It has your name on it. It has been bound together. This is a Reformation Study Bible. I think the same translation he was just using. Now, you've got one problem. I didn't separate the pages because that's half the fun in having anything new. Yes. Is the, the wonderful, uh, paint on the edge of the pages. You have to go through and you have to separate them. So, don't tear your pages. Uh, see, see how they sort of stick together because that's just, that's just how it's, how it's done with a brand new Bible. I didn't want to ruin, uh, the gift for you, but, uh, you really don't understand how amazing this gift is. This is, this is, this is a hand-bound, handmade. This is like legend. Well, thank you very much for this gift. With, I will, I will, I will cherish this. This is, you got, wow. So, and I want to let you get there. And it's the right color, right? Yes, it's the right blue. That is my favorite color. I asked James White is charitable. Anyone who says this man is not. He is a charitable, good man. He is. He is. Um, so just before you pick it up and go to the passage, just want to point something out to you. Just again, this is a humble, very respectful nudge to you. When I quoted from the Apostle Paul here and what he said about Jesus, who was in the very form of God and did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, held on to, but he emptied himself and took upon the form of a servant, humbled himself, became obedient to death. Your first response was a reaction, and you said that's just poetic language. No, that wasn't my first response. I've heard it before. Okay. But that was your response was that he's using poetic language, and you talked about the need for context. I just want to point out to you as you go to the, the, the word of God there that you then asked me when I gave the Bible to you, "Can you tell me where this was at, which chapter, which means," and this is again a humble nudge, not anything other than say, I want you to pay attention to this. You had a response to a passage from scripture in terms of a reputation. That's poetic language, but you didn't even know where it was from. Quite. I would like to, if I can defend myself. One, um, the words in your Bible are very, very small. I was just, I was asking you to point to it because one, I really, it's incredibly small. You have great eyes for 40. The other thing is, um, uh, and now a peep. That's right. Yes. But I also like to say though, um, it is completely normal to have a view and an opinion on scripture and not know where every single scripture is, right off the top of your. My point was is you were responding to a specific text with an argument and a reputation. No, no, no, no, wait, wait. I was responding because when you said, um, when, when the text ended saying, you know, "made himself nothing." I'm saying that is poetic because Christ also said, "Before Abraham was, I am." So it's not saying nothing. Or Jesus was just. So that's why I'm saying to figure out. So that's what poetic means. I'm not saying the whole thing was poetic, but that is a poetic way of saying something. Would you agree? You lost. You lost me there. Let me, let me, let me focus in upon that because I've done a lot of work on this text and, and if you, I think what Jeff wants to do is have you open that chapter. Look at Philippians chapter 2. Philippians chapter 2. I hope the print is not too small for you. I'm sorry. And if you want to train Bible, um, but let me just point something out. Well, I'd like to say it's not that it's too small for you to read. It was so small, I didn't feel like searching for it in that 10 seconds I had. I understand. I understand. Let me, let me just say a couple things. First of all, you're exactly right that the, uh, language of verses 6-11 in Philippians chapter 2 is poetic because most scholars believe that this is a portion of an ancient hymn of the church. And so it is poetic. However, I would point out everything in the Psalter is poetic. And many hymns represent a, a very precise theology. And I would, I would suggest to you that what we have here is a very precise theology. Yes. Verse six. "Who existing in the morphu, the very form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be held on to or grasped, but made himself nothing." Now, when you say that's poetic, I will agree with you in this, in this sense. Paul never uses this Greek word kenōsis in a literal sense. He always uses it metaphorically. So, for example, he says, "I don't want my labor amongst you to become empty." He's not talking about the bonds going to fall out and it's going to be on the floor and ruined. He's talking metaphorically. So on that, I would agree. So what does that mean here? What that means here is that Paul is exhorting the believers to an attitude of humility toward one another. What is humility? It's having certain rights and privileges, but laying them aside in the service of other people. Yes. So how did G, how is Jesus our example of this? He eternally exists in the form of God. Isaiah chapter 6, when Isaiah saw Jehovah sitting upon the throne, that was Jesus. That was, that was the one who would become, uh, the Son in the incarnation. So he's worshiped by the host of heaven. And yet he made himself of no reputation by doing what? How? Jehovah is sitting down, but you don't believe he has a body. How is he sitting down if he's everywhere? He's again, he's God. God, why would you have to have a physical body to be able to sit upon a throne? Why are you? Well, when you sit down, that's, you're sitting down and you got a chair. So, so that, so that means you have a body. See, you're, you're, you are projecting onto God your creaturliness rather than creaturliness. No, that's just the, that's just words. That's just how the word sit means. You're sitting down. That's like saying upon his throne. He's seen by God. Do you really think that Isaiah was saying, "Look, he's a human being like me"? That's not what he's saying at all. I mean, he probably was saying that that he was, he was, and this was he's sitting upon a throne. He's sitting down. I would like to, I mean, if we can even go to, we can go to. So, the same Isaiah who's going to tell us that that that Yahweh is without beginning, without end, fills the universe, he's also saying, "But he also has a physical body," which you don't believe he had at that. That's poetic. The saying he feel like, well, that, that is something poetic, but saying like the vision. Oh, I see. Poetic does not mean untrue. Poetic. The poetic language here is extremely specific, and what is it? It is specific, but it is not stating that he is everywhere. I can find, if I can go straight to Genesis for, for a moment, to, to read scriptures. Um, well, just real fast, just so we, just clarify on those. There were two different points being made there. The one was reference to Isaiah, you were responding to there. We were talking about Philippians chap 2. Those are two separate issues. The reason we went to Philippians chapter 2 originally is because you brought up a text from Mark about Christ not knowing the hour of his, his return. And so we were pointing out that the term echenosin specifically would include making himself of no reputation. There was a veiling of his pre-existent glory. So which responds to that, um, first question that you had there. I think it, I think it responds. I don't think it actually answers because it's saying, "Okay, you're saying he veiled." I would agree with that. However, the scripture you read in Philippians 2, um, that, that, that in no way is is com, is, um, is supporting a, a, a Trinitarian idea. Why? You have, you have, you have one who is eternally equal with the Father, which eternally equal, eternally equal with the Father. So you're saying eternally equal, but then you're saying, um, he voluntarily, he voluntarily makes himself of no reputation. Mostly equal with the Father is what you're saying. No, because not eternally. No, no, no. See, you, you are, you are completely misunderstanding what equality means. Equality. Equality is not an equal sign that says the Father is the Son. The Son and the Father eternally exist as God. So do they know the exact same thing? No, they do not. Well, then can they be eternally equal in the way you're saying? No, they can't. Nature by nature, they share the one being that is God. You are, but not by purpose or not by knowledge, not eternally equal. That's kind of what you're saying. Is what I'm saying is that each of the persons acts in such a way that we can identify and distinguish between Father, Son, and Spirit. It's the Son who became incarnate. None of this changes the fact that there's only one God, and none of this changes the fact that none of these were men that lived on another planet beforehand. And I will also note, we, we've skipped over one significant portion there. It teaches there in the text that Paul says, an inspired apostle says that Jesus was in the form of God. But you don't believe that, do you? What's the form of, in the form of God? Jesus is in a form of God before his earthly ministry. You believe that Jesus was, you believe that Jesus was a god. You believe he was a god before the incarnation. Yes. Okay. And then continued to be a god after the resurrection and was still a god on earth. But he didn't marry. He wasn't able to have offspring. And that's why Mormons have even speculated as to whether Jesus will have that opportunity and the Holy Spirit will have that opportunity. Well, that is a, that is another water balloon that's not relevant right now. Um, I would say not at all, not at all relevant right now. I think talking about, again, we said God being a person and not just this, this essence everywhere, and you saying God is eternal and the Son is eternal with the Father, but then saying he, the Father knows something the Son doesn't. But if they're eternal, co-equal, completely one, like you're saying, they cannot know. The Father will not know something he doesn't, because if it's one God, and the God cannot divide or contradict itself. So on what basis are you saying the Son does not have the capacity or ability to enter into human flesh to redeem his king? Not what I'm saying. I'm saying no, it is what you're saying. No, I'm not. The scripture that says, the scripture that says, the scripture that says, uh, sorry, speaking in context of the second coming, "No man knoweth, not even the Son, but the Father." The incarnate state for the specific reason of being the Messiah. The Son voluntarily chose to take that role. I agree. But I'm saying that doesn't work if it's one God. That doesn't work. That's God being divided against itself. It's not. Then prove it. Okay. So what is, what does divide? Divide what? I'm not saying that the being of God has been divided. Do you know something that Jeff doesn't know? That the divine person of the Son can voluntarily. I agree with that. But I'm saying that interrupts humiliation. No, it doesn't. It absolutely does. You've never read Protestant thought. I was raised a Protestant. Oh, well, you converted at what age? Was I converted at what age? I was converted at 15. Okay. So, at 15, you had read Augustine's work on the Trinity. You had read B.B. And I both know you don't have to read every book in history. Quo, I think the point we're, we're pointing out here, Quo, just if you could just allow me to say this. I think what we're trying to point out here is that it's, it's already been demonstrated, I think, can be demonstrated. We can, we can spend time doing if you want that you made errors in your description of what Christians believe about the Trinity. No, I didn't. And you sat next to Ian made an error. I did not make. You sat next to without any correction. To know. I, I, I want the people in the audience to go get Ian and get the tire treads off of his back. Um, he just got thrown under the bus. So the point is, you offer very smart, and I love. Well, the point is, is that you offered no correction and you allowed it to be published, and it's been there for. If you could just let me finish. Sorry. Sorry. Okay. Thank you. Um, and you allowed it to be published, and you knew there were errors apparently there, and you allowed it to go up with those errors. I can say that that to me is, um, a little difficult to swallow. Well, I'll just finish, finish the thought here. So, in terms of, you, you appealing to the fact that you were raised Protestant. Yes. I, I want to say to, just speaking to people who are reformed on this side, um, in terms of being raised in American Protestantism or evangelicalism, I want to just let you know as an argument from authority, that means very little in 21st century America. And I mean this almost like as a heartbroken, but, you know, humble jab at you. It means really nothing. But you also, I want to point out to you that you can't, you haven't pointed this is really your first book on the Trinity just handed to you today. So when you say that you have. Well, I don't own books on the Trinity. I've read extensively about the Trinity. I do not own books about that. I'm in college. I don't own. If you've read books on the, on the Trinity, and I, I'm only asking this to, to understand where the questions are coming from. If you read them on the Trinity, then why do you keep creating these category errors in argument? Okay, I will now respond to, to this buffet of good questions on, on the, in the question of the show. Um, your show operates differently than our show. This isn't, this isn't a question of me representing theology. This is how media works. Um, I don't, I don't edit the episodes of the show. We give suggestions, and they do them what they will. Um, they're edited at different times. So, um, we, we spoke on that subject for about 40 minutes. Um, I recognize that some of the things in the episode were, you know, not true, as, as any deep topic you discuss on any show, whether it be political, religious, about farming, you're going to get some things wrong, that's totally fine. However, saying that I allowed it to go up and I was putting forth information. This isn't, this isn't me trying to, to, to try to get you to answer. You're not on, on the witness stand right now. Not, no, I know. I know. I just want to clarify my. I know, but what I'm, what I'm pointing out to you is that you, you made an argument from authority there about yourself and your own background and training in this area, but what I'm just pointing out to you is, as you guys are dialoguing, you keep creating these, you, you're making category errors, and you're, you're demonstrating that you don't really understand this thought, but then you claim that you do. And I don't think, uh, I don't think I'm, I'm misrepresenting. I'm just saying I was raised Protestant, and, and I just think it's to say you don't understand this, you don't know. We've only met today. So I think we should get away from Alabama. You don't know this, you don't know this, you're not smart enough, or let's just talk about the claim. Yeah, that hasn't been done here. We're responding to your claim. Okay. You made the claim that what I was saying and what Christians have believed about what the Son voluntarily did is somehow contradictory. No. Uh, let, can I? You said it was somehow contradictory to Protestant thought. No, this. Okay, I will. So there's no, so there's no misunderstanding. I will state what I'm saying right now. I'm saying that if it is one God, they Father, Son, and Spirit cannot be separated from each other. They cannot be divided. They are completely one together. I'm saying I think it is disingenuous to claim that at any point the Father will know something the Son doesn't know. Okay, you just, the error that you made and why that does not represent Protestantism and why I don't believe any 15-year-old in a community church could have even begun to know this, which was your immediately response. Well, is that the, the relationship of Father, Son, and Spirit is not only one that allows us to distinguish between Father, Son, and Spirit even before creation. But after creation, they take differing roles in the redemption of mankind. It's called the economic Trinity. It's not the Father who became incarnate. No, I know that. It was not the Spirit who became incarnate. The Son. So you can, so which is fundamental Trinitarian teaching. Great. We agree. So if there's three, there's three. Uh, there are three persons, one being, and you, you just automatically just shut down. And I will not, you, I will not allow that distinction that makes sense of the scriptures. I don't believe, if I don't believe that you can, can make sense of all of the scriptures, if you do not allow for the fact that there is one God, Yahweh, who has revealed himself as Father, Son, and Spirit. That is what we believe, and it is not against Protestant thinking to recognize that the Son. I never said it's against Protestant thinking. I just think it's, it shows that there is a disconnect because. No disconnect. Connection there. There. Well, we look, we can say that. I'm just saying I think it's, it's interesting to claim one God, one being, completely united, completely together, every sense of the way, by nature, in knowledge, or nature, by. We're talking about the, the being of God. The Father knows everything the Son knows. We're talking about God's nature. Well, I would like to ask about knowledge. Does the Father know everything the Son does? But you must know, is life a part of eternity? Is life a part of eternity? Even in Mormon theology, there is, in Mormon theology, there is a distinction regarding the incarnate state. We are not right now. This is about the Trinity. This is not about. I don't want to. I want to ask you. I'm holding you accountable for your own position. Is this, is this world, this life right now, is this a part of eternity? Is it a part of eternity? Yes. Okay. So if in eternity they know everything in the same knowledge. This scripture says the Son does not know something the Father knows. And you say he did it willingly, veiled. Okay. But I'm just saying I think that's interesting that you are, on one hand, saying they know everything from eternity to eternity, completely unified, every single subject, every single knowledge of matter and space, but then it's saying, "Okay, well, the Father doesn't know, the Son doesn't know." I think that's the incarnation. Incarnation is a part of eternity. Is it? But it is a specific historical reality. I'm saying it's a part of eternity. That's all I'm saying. John 1:14. I agree with you. Says no. You don't. No, I do. I do agree. I agree with you. You're not agreeing with hearing what I was saying. I, I am hearing and saying you would recognize that as I pointed out from the prologue of John, that there was a, there is a distinction that even John gives between the eternal relationship of Father and Son in NRK, and then in 1:14, "the Word became flesh." Yes. So that happened in history, and, and therefore there was a purpose. The Father sends the Son, the Son comes voluntarily, the Spirit is involved, but they all take different roles. So you sit back and say, "Oh, but if they take different roles, and if that, if that means that there's going to be any, you know, I mean, the Father remains glorious and worshiped in heaven, but now the Son is being abused by these people. I just can't believe how that could fit the Trinity." There's no basis for it. I didn't say that. I'm just saying I think it's interesting because I think the two views you just gave, I do think, and any person who's looking at them will notice that there seems to be a contradiction. And I, I will disagree, of course. The only reason you bring that though is because you're bringing external definitions from, as you admitted earlier, a different religion. No, I'm using definitions by words in Merriam-Webster's dictionary. Do you really, do you really think that you're, you're not influenced by your Mormon worldview? Um, okay. We are both influenced by our religion. You're Calvinist, my Latter-day Saint worldview. I'm just saying it's, you don't have to be a Latter-day Saint to see this. What's this contradiction between having a complete knowledge together as one God? Because I agree on this hand. I agree that the Son didn't know what the Father knew while he was on earth. The Joseph Smith translation makes that clear. However, I will say though, that means they're not this one God in the way you're saying. Also, earlier this, this beckons to or echoes the earlier thought of when I asked about the, the Trinity before the incarnation, and you said one, one together. But then you're, but if you can make any distinction, it isn't one. And I, if you understood, if you. No, it's not. No, no, it's not that I don't understand. It's that it isn't amazing for me. A Mormon who emphasizes latter-day revelation all the time would be content to actually sit there and say it's math. No, it's revelation. It's revelation. It's right here. It's right here. The beautiful thing about revelation is consistently allowing all true knowledge fits within revelation, and math fits within revelation, and the Trinity is mathematically incoherent in my opinion. So it is not revelation. It is, it is not mathematically incoherent. 100%. If you really, person are two different things. How can you make them contradictory to one another? Okay. Being and person are are two different things. Um, however, I, we disagree there. What we disagree on is when you say one God and then you say three, but then you're saying not divided, but having distinct, like distinctive differences. You just, you just c. I'm surprised at this. I'll be honest with you because you just made a category error. When we say undivided, we're saying that the being of God cannot be divided up into parts. There is only one being of God. When we talk about the persons, when we talk about the persons sharing that one being, if you were familiar with Trinitarian theology, you would know that we emphasize this is not a division of the being of God. The Father is not one-third of God. The Spirit is not one-third of God. The Son is not one-third of God. There can be no division of the being. There is, however, a distinction of the persons because they relate to one another. They have revealed themselves to us in such a way that we can distinguish between Father, Son, and Spirit. And if you would just get away from, you see, of, of making being and person the same thing. I tried, that's why I was trying to explain this earlier on, and you sort of just said, "Could we get back to the Trinity?" And give you the foundational stuff. Dr. W, you explained it now. I still think it's, if I may say, nonsense. I don't mean that in a rude way. I'm just trying to figure out words to use. Can I, I haven't, I haven't said anything for a little bit. Let me just say one of the things that I think we would want to say to you in terms of our, our, our loving, encouraging evangelization of you because we want to see you know the Lord. We want you to see. I know, I know, I know him well, and that's what we're discussing. I, I just want you to hear this. I think that it makes sense to me, a lot of sense to me that, um, that a, that you, that Mormonism is, is very attractive and appealing to a creature, a, a creature that has been created by God, that sees their own experience of mothers and fathers and children in time and space, and only they see this material realm around us. How the God of Mormonism makes a lot of sense because he's us. He's just like us. Whereas the biblical definition of God from Genesis to Revelation is a God that is far above us. Really? Well, it says, "And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden to cool the day. And man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord. He was walking." The, "Let us make man in our image after our likeness." And then Adam says the same thing. And Adam made Seth in his image after his likeness. This is a physical God. We're talking about the metaphysical, not like energy consciousness is just not there. Okay, hold on. Wait. Where? Where? And this is one of those examples. You just did it again. You said this energy consciousness. When have we suggested to you at any point that we believe God is an energy consciousness? Well, you say God is, God, God does not have a body and God does not have borders. And if he doesn't have a body or borders, he's just got to be physical. He's got to be. The Lord of Glory himself. That said God is spirit. And what is spirit? Well, you want to get definitions in terms of. No. What is spirit to you? Spirit not immaterial. Immaterial. I would say immaterial. So is conscious, is not a fair word to use. Spirit is immaterial. And now you're now doing another, and now, and now you're doing something else too. You're talking about consciousness. Something that a person would have. Person, that's a person category. But we're talking about nature and substance here. We're talking about. You, you asked what spirit is. I was. Well, best way to say that in terms of this discussion is immaterial. Immaterial. What? Just, just im. Not a consciousness, not a knowledge. Immaterial. What? What is spirit? So in ter, well, consciousness and knowledge would be something that would be in the category of person. Is three persons, one being. But even if it isn't, what is spirit? Spirit.

Is spirit? I mean, it's a revelatory term, and I want—I want your audience, why? Why do you want a mathematical definition? It's not mathematical. I—I want your audience to understand this, and I want the latter-day saints listening to understand this. We, from the restored—who believe in the restored—go sorry, everyone, you'll—they'll lose everything you're saying. It'll all be for naught. The restored gospel of Jesus Christ is, uh, beautiful and true, and showing the biblical, uh, of definition and and and nature of God of having a body.

Um, and you know, I—and and Jacob called the place of the—the name of the place Peniel, for I've seen God face to face. The Lord spake unto Moses face to face, a man speaketh unto his friend. You're saying, "Go, no, no, no, wait, wait, wait, wait. You're saying, 'Oh, immaterial.'" And I say, "What? What is immaterial?" I don't really know what is spirit. I don't really know. You don't have a—well, you didn't give me an answer to what is immaterial. He didn't give me an answer.

Being eternally spirit. You said. And then I asked about knowledge. You said, "Well, knowledge, that's person." But then you also say, "Person. There's three persons in the being of God." You have to allow for conversation. Okay. So, I think I think I'll—I'll—I'll respond to what you said, and people can, thankfully, this is recorded. They can roll the tape back and say that we didn't, in fact, say what you said we said.

But in terms of when you go to the Old Testament and you—you pull random text from the Bible to show God. I'm not pulling random. I'm talking about the physicality of God. Let me just say, I want—I would like to respond to each of those. In terms of the Old Testament, revelation does have numerous glorious, amazing instances, which, by the way, I use to demonstrate the triune nature of God, of of the pre-incarnate Christ showing up, right, and and interacting with his people. It's a glorious thing that I think supports and demonstrates, of course, the triune nature of God. That so we go to those same texts too. So when you quote them, I say, "Amen and Hallelujah." I know you do. That's what I preach on.

But but in terms of when you—when you start quoting passages from the Old Testament talking about him speaking to God face to face like one speaks to his friend, I—I have a solid biblical answer from that for that that actually works in tandem with all of the rest of scripture. But if we start doing what you're doing in terms of just taking these texts and just throwing them out, making God look like he's an exalted man, I would say, "Do you believe that God has feathers?" Um, if he wants to have feathers, he can, because the Bible has numerous examples of God, um, keeping us in the shadow of his wings. Yeah, that's poetic. Okay. So saying face to face and then echoing again as a man speaketh to his friend. That's not poetic. That's trying to get a point across.

So, what's what's important here to to note is we both recognize that there is hyperbole used in scripture. Yes. And that is not metaphor and symbol used in scripture. Right. And so we have to take them in their context, and not just one text here, there, but in their immediate context, in the context of all of scripture. Correct? So when we look in the Bible and we see God's consistent descriptions of himself and his own nature as something that is not creaturely, something that is beyond us, something that is from everlasting to everlasting. Well, I think it's talking about—it's talking about knowledge. The Bible makes it clear. It's talking about the knowledge and power is something we can't grasp. But the being and nature itself makes very clear. He's a father. He's a man who looks like us, made in his image. Wait, hold on now. Hold on. Wait. You just—you just made a category error there. You talked about father in terms of being. I'm say—I'm—I'm saying he's our father. He's the father of humanity, but he's also a man. And those two things go well together. That's what the Bible says. There is nowhere in the Bible where it says, "Verily, thus sayeth the Lord unto you, I am not, um, I am not a physical being. Yay. Not even a being you could understand if you saw, but I am immaterial." That goes with everywhere. That's not scriptural. That's a later idea.

Let me let me allow God to speak to that. You turn things around. Shall the potter be considered to be like the clay? And what is made would say of its maker, "He did not make me." Or what is formed say of him who formed it, "He has no understanding"? The biblical utilization of the category of the potter and the clay. You turn things around. This is about as descriptive of Mormon theology as I can possibly come up with. Shall the potter be considered to be like the clay? Yes, actually, because if I recall correctly, uh, according to the, uh, eternal, uh, achieving a celestial marriage student manual, copyright 1992, Corporation of the President of the Church, Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we have one of the most amazing statements I've ever read in any religion. It's this: "Always, you are an eternal being. You were never created and you cannot be destroyed, but you can advance, advance, progress, and develop by obedience." Do you agree with the First Presidency's statement? Um, before I agree with anything, I need to read it myself. I need to read the context with their speaking. I need to read why they released that statement. I don't just go and go, "This is the eternal marriage ceremony ceremony manual." To be married in the temple for more than a decade, I will read that and I will get back to you. Okay. Okay. Let me just make sure everybody hears it, though, because this is LDS a part a part of it without context. You're reading, uh, a part of it. Uh, I can, and it's also, you didn't read that wasn't even Latter-day scripture. That's not even in a canon either. You're—you're not picking things in our canon. I thought you believed in the authoritative teaching office of the Corporation of the Presidency of the Church, Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint. I do. I just think it's interesting that trying to get to Latter-day Saint doctrine, you've not quoted scripture. You've just quoted, first of all, the Book of Mormon doesn't teach any of this stuff about God because Doctrine and Covenants does. Covenants does. Well, when the Book of Mormon was translated, you didn't have all of the—that's how you know line upon line, precept upon precept, and that's how our scripture comes forth, and that's how our gospel is restored, line upon line. Um, so, so you're objecting to my quoting from the First Presidency. Of course, I'm not. I'm objecting. You're quoting out of context and throwing it and not, um, giving it its its fair, uh, due explanation. First of all, I have read, uh, this entire section, uh, so many times I've lost count, and I will allow anyone to examine themselves, and they will see it as completely in context. God was once a man who by obedience advanced to his present state of—I agree with that. Through obedience and celestial marriage, we may progress to the point where we become like God, proclaiming the divine potential within man. John Taylor once wrote, "Knowest thou not that thou art a spark of deity, struck from the fire of his eternal blaze, and brought forth in midst of everlasting burnings?" Elder B.H. Roberts stated, "Man has descended from God. In fact, he is the same race as the gods. His descent has not been from a lower form of life, but from the highest form of life." In other words, man is in the most literal sense a child of God. This is not only true of the spirit of man, but of his body also. It's beautiful and true. And I think a wonderful example we see of that is how we know that God was a man, as scripture says. But I think there's an even bigger umbrella here. We should—we should discuss one other quote and then I want to—All right. All right. One other quote and I'll—Elder James E. Talmage. In his mortal condition, man is God in embryo. However, any individual now mortal being may attain the rank and sanctity of godship. I just want to contrast these statements with once again the words of what we know Jesus taught was the very word of God, because he quoted from the prophet Isaiah so many times. "You turn things around. Shall the potter be considered as like the clay, and that what is made would say of its maker, 'He did not make me'?" Earlier on, you pointed out, "If you—if you agree with the statement, you are an eternal being. You were never made and you cannot be destroyed." That is a 180-degree contradiction of the teaching of inspired. It is 100% not a contradiction because, yes, the potter is not like the clay in the sense that, as as people on earth, we are not like God. We don't have the knowledge, and it—it's trying to show the place of humanity and God. However, this idea of becoming God, then, very, very scriptural. "For our conversation is in heaven, from whence also we look for the Savior, Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." The spirit itself beareth witness that our spirit that we're children of God. And what does that mean to you? I—I would like—I'd like to finish. "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, joint heirs of Christ; if so they suffer with him, we also be glorified together." Right? This is adoption of redeemed sinners. This has nothing—Know ye not that ye shall judge angels? Who judges angels? God. God. Okay. So, so, yeah. Not not the firemen. So, so, so the man god. So, the same scriptures that says there is one God says there's actually many gods. It is absolutely incoherent. No, it's not incoherent. I'm saying you don't. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Sorry, Miss Dr. White. Dr. White, I'm sorry. Here again, this is why I immediately brought up the context of which those scriptures are saying when it's saying, "No other god before me beside me." It's not saying it in the English European, uh, revisionist history. The context. I gave you ancient context. I gave you the ancient context. I gave you—You gave me liberalism that I've heard. You liberalism alive. And there's answers to all of that. My point is, how about this? I think no liberalism. Make sure it takes time quicker. Fair. You made the statement that the potter and the clay is just simply a matter of knowledge. No, sir. It is a matter of being. I agree. Forms clay as he wishes. Mhm. God forms us as he wishes. He is not clay. We will reign with him, and we will judge angels. That's what the scripture says through the work of Jesus Christ. The gospel, my friend, is agree. I become gods with—it says it says we can become Christ. It says we can become like God. And you know, we both know we could quote early Christian church fathers who would who believe the same thing. Actually, I tore that to shreds. Was sitting in the seat that you're sitting in. You know, I think if you have to say that you tore something to shreds and not another person, I think that—Let's talk about Not a single one of the people that you quoted on that program would have believed with you that God was once a man who lived on other planet. Well, I guess we'll find out next life when we talk to him. No, sir. Yeah, we—I guess we'll find out. Church history for many, many years. And I'm telling you, listen to me. Think with me for a moment. Dr. People did not believe that God was once a man who lived on another planet. How on earth can you then interpret them to be saying what you are saying? Dr. White. Okay. Well, if I—if I will, I think that the—there's there's something important for this conversation that we should remember. I think that we should let ourselves speak for ourselves. I don't think that we need to to say, "Oh, well, you know, for 30 years I taught such and such." Let's just—we don't need to appeal to our authority. Let's just talk exactly what the script—Making claims to authority that you have not backed up in the—I believe I've backed it up very, very fairly. But I do—I do think I will respond just real fast, just so we don't get off course here. Could you respond to the the point that he just made about the early church fathers? Yes. You brought—you made a point about early church fathers believing that they could become God, like the God of this earth, and he responded to that. Can you—and you're saying that, well, none of them believed that he was an exalted man. I just say the idea of him being an exalted man, um, one, um, and and correct me if I'm wrong here, I don't even believe that's in the Doctrine and Covenants, um, that that, uh, God was once a man. That's not—that's not in our doctrine. Section 130, verse 22, as a body of flesh and bones. Yeah. But doesn't talk about exaltation because the Bible says he flesh and close. Uh, you—that that's fair to say it gets close, and I—that's why I believe it. He was an exalted man. Christ was exalted. I think the Father was exalted. However, if you say, "Well, the early Christian church fathers didn't teach that." They did teach that we could become gods, and they didn't teach that God looked like us. So, it's not—it's we don't—we don't exactly know whether they taught that or not. We don't even believe they were apostles of the Christian church fathers. So, I don't look to them for complete authority. But you do cite them, and I believe you cite them very, very wrongly. There's an entire chapter in the book sitting right in front of you where I go through a number of those texts that you used and demonstrated that from the writings of the early church fathers. So, let me ask—I will let—I will let your fans when you quoted Irenaeus, when you quoted Irenaeus, give me one book Irenaeus wrote. Here's what I want to do. I want us—Can you just answer that one? Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait, because here's what I don't want this to turn into, because I know that a great, uh, uh, debate technique, and what you do is say, "You know this, you know this, you know this." No, and I don't, and I don't. I don't. What I want, what I want, I would ask, I want to ask this. I want—I want—No, I don't think it's unfair. But what I want to say is this: I think we can—If if the the the deter—the the doctrine of God being an exalted man, the doctrine of of of us becoming gods, this in in our context speaking right now, you may not believe it rests upon the early church fathers, but it rests upon Joseph Smith's doctrine. Is that fair to say? You believe this is doctrine of Joseph Smith? Oh, most definitely. So if Joseph Smith—If Joseph Smith was telling the truth, then this is true. If he was lying, then he was lying. And it's it's googlyak. It's nonsense. The way to test the validity of Joseph Smith is not to get into the incredibly deep, esoteric, "Well, was God a man? Can—can—can Origen confirm that?" Blah, blah, blah. No. The way to determine the validity of Joseph Smith is the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon is an authentic—How can that be? I'll explain. If the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient record of Mesoamerican history, spiritual knowledge, and doctrine, if it is true, and it came forth the way Joseph said it came forth, then we have only reason to believe that the restored gospel, Latter-day Saint theology, is true. Two problem—two errors. A, the Book of Mormon doesn't teach any of this stuff. Joseph Smith didn't believe any of these things. Well, can I finish? The Book of Mormon. Secondly, obviously, um, since it doesn't teach these things, it cannot validate the truthfulness of these things because you have to allow the possibility, hey, maybe it was an ancient record, and then Joseph Smith went off into weirdness in the years after the Book of Mormon, right? So, even if that were true, are you telling me it's impossible, given how many people Joseph Smith himself excommunicated from the LDS Church that once had a testimony of the Book of Mormon? Are you telling me that that actually follows? It—it doesn't. Here's what I'll say. Secondly, I have lots of reasons for not believing the Book of Mormon is an ancient record of anything that took place in this—I know you do, but maybe one day you'll get it. So, here's here's my response. Um, Joseph Smith, uh, I—he never claimed that God came down and put like an SD card in his brain. He gave him all the information at once. In our church, we use this phrase quite a lot, "line upon line, precept upon precept." We believe God gradually revealed things, and he gave a little bit, and a little bit more, a little bit more, a little bit more until the doctrine of, "Oh, I understand God now." It was—it was a staircase up. That's what we're claiming. We are never claiming that it happened all at once. And I think—Wait, but with the First Vision, you have a problem. Can I finish? Yeah. So let me—you see what the issue is. Let me finish. So you have the staircase going up, and you have little more, little more, little more, little more given. The Book of Mormon is where you start. And if it is an authentic ancient record of which we have great evidence for, then that means, okay, that first staircase that was true. Is it prideful then to go, "Well, none of this stuff is true"? If the Book of Mormon is true, the reality is, if the Book of Mormon is true, then the debate of of of Christian doctrine, who is right, Calvinist and Baptist, are no longer even on the table. They're no longer there. And if the—if evidence for the Book of Mormon is true, then really nothing we even talked about the past hour or 45 minutes really matters that much if we know the Book of Mormon is true, because it seems within line and and reasonable thought that we can trust the later restored gospel doctrines that, um, are witnessed to by many, many people. Well, your your stairstep analogy unfortunately is contradictory to your own position because I don't think it is. So, you know, you don't even want to hear why. Can you let it sit as a thought? I do. Do you see how you're responding? I—I'm interjecting because you interject, so I'm trying to match your energy. Okay. Uh, but the the problem is that it wasn't, uh, a stairstep. Allegedly, God appeared to Joseph Smith in the spring of 1820. Mhm. And as two separate and distinct physical beings. Now, there are massive historical problems with the First Vision. Uh, none of the churches in that area had a revival in 1820. It took place in 1824. Where Joseph Smith himself said that Reverend Lane was the Methodist church. He didn't get there till 1824, 1823. Um, the land assessment records demonstrate they didn't live with where you—where are you getting this from? A book that I wrote before you were born. And who is quote—who are you quoting in the book and reading? The land assessment records and everything else that are available to anybody who wants to look at these things. You're free to—you're free to respond. I'll let you each finish your thoughts. Let me finish the point. The point is there is massive historical evidence that the First Vision story developed. And in fact, what's fascinating is when I was your age, uh, I went into the church historical department and I photocopied Joseph's own handwritten account, the First Vision, where he doesn't have two persons. I had to show that to people, and they were like, "No, no, no, no. That's now being published by the church, which is a fascinating change that's taking place over time." Well, we've been talking about that for quite a long time. Quite a long time, actually. I'm sorry that that's been being spoken about for quite a long time. What's been being spoken about? The fact that, um, and and one of the the the accounts of the First Vision, it's only talked about the Father. It is a clear—How many, how many of the nine, how many of the nine accounts did Joseph Smith write? What depends on how you define which nine you're talking of. Of the nine First Vision accounts we have from whom? Okay. Well, that doesn't make any sense. Okay. So, what I'm saying, um, you're talking about, let's say, let's take this day right here. Okay. I can write an account of this day. You can write an account of this day. You can write an account of this day. That's three accounts right there. They're not all from you or from you or for you. I'm saying, how many of the nine did Joseph Smith write? I don't even know what nine you're talking about. But the So that's how many we have. We got nine. We've got nine accounts of—depends on how you count them. But the point is that Joseph Smith is not teaching in the Book of Mormon what he ends up teaching in the Book of Abraham, which itself is right. We don't have to. In fact, I will—I will counter your Book of Mormon statement by saying that the Book of Abraham is one of the clearest evidences that the Book of Mormon is a fraud. No, it's not. Because I think the Book of Abraham is beautiful and true. And I think we have great evidence of that with the plane of old and with the manner in which Egyptians were sacrificed. We know those things are both true and we're verified. It's true. It's fact. It's fact. It's fact. Egyptian one and then two. When you can turn an Egyptian funerary document into—You believe in a talking snake, sir. God can work miracles. You believe in a talking donkey? God can work miracles. I will allow that statement to stand because there is absolutely—That God miracles. Can God work? I didn't pay you to say that. Did I? Can God work miracles? Can God work miracles? Uh, that can work—identify the fraudulent utilization of an Egyptian funerary miracles as a miracle similar to what God would do is unfortunately a level of deception that is very, very frightening to me. To sorry, I think it's—I think it's a fair comparison. Would mean that you have no capacity to be able to check and balance your own statements. Well, I will let the audience decide. Side. Um, I won't insult you. Um, here's what I will say, though, about the Book of Mormon. We know from many evidences that it is an authentic ancient record. It is an objectively true record. I—I know that completely oppos—Go ahead and finish up. Let me finish. Okay. Go ahead. So, in your book, by the way, we talk about—I know that, um, uh, you and and and then in one of your, uh, your episodes I watched, you actually were quoting Fawn Brody and things like that. Well, she—that's probably the worst to to to get true Latter-day Saint history, you want to get the newest scholarship and not old cred scholarship that no one likes anymore and isn't true. So, and that's—I'm sorry. Unfortunately, old stuff. Yeah. So for the Book of Mormon, the way to authenticate it being an authentic, you know, true historical record, we would need to see evidence of it in, you know, linguistic evidence. We need to see that there is there is a literary parallel to other ancient texts that Joseph Smith did not know about. We would need to see archaeological evidence. And guess what? We've got that archaeological evidence. So you have a Limna. Could you show me a Limna? Um, I would actually—I'll actually give you some right now if that's—I would like. So, no, no, no, no. Limna. I—I was looking for Limna. Well, I don't care what you're looking for. I'm going to give you what I have. So, uh, the point is there are there—Please, is there a lima? Please let me finish. Please let me finish. You made a point. You made a point, and I'm interacting. No, no, no. I haven't even made my point yet. I didn't give an example. You made the statement. Okay. Well, I'm just going to read it. I'm just going to read—I'm just going to read. February 2018, National Geographic came out with this wonderful new project where they unveiled wonderful information about Guatemala. And from this, we know, uh, actually, I'd like to quote Thomas Garin of Ithaca College, who was on this project. He said, and this is called light detection ranging, where they can basically find, uh, what's underground by shooting lasers into it and find what was there. And this is a wonderful new technology we were using to find out about the ancient world. He said, "Among the most surprising findings was the ubiquity of defensive walls, ramparts, terraces, and fortresses. Warfare wasn't only happening toward the end of the civilization. It was large-scale and systematic." This matches perfectly with Moroni 49:13. "Moroni had fortified and built forts of security for every city and land around the belt." Ah, I'm not finished. I'm going to—I'm going to—I'm going to continue. Um, even highways, and there are many highways cast up in roads made through Nephi 6 with horses, right? Yeah. Well, I'll get to that later. And guess what? We find that there were highways. So again, this is more Book of Mormon things thought not to be true, which we now know are true, even with sunken cities. Heck, we even have a person verified Zenus of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon prophet. Um, luckily, we we can go to, um, uh, the biblical antiquities written by Pho, around the time of Christ, where they talk about Zenus, um, and, and, and if you would like to learn more about this, I would think your audience should go to bookofmormoncentral.org. In the—no, we have a place. We've literally verified a place. Allow swords, bows, and arrows being used with armor. I would—Yes or no? Um, well, one, we we have found metal. Yes. Not metal. Well, what does it mean by armor? You and I both know that armor is different material in different countries. It isn't just the European sense of armors, as well. Who wrote that article? Would they affirm that the people they're looking at engaged in battle, battle on horses with swords to where they could scalp other people with the sword? Yes or no? Did the—Does the Book of Mormon say they rode horses? Yes. No. There are no horses in the Book of Mormon. The horses are in the Book of Mormon. But here's here's where I think Protestants get wrong. And let me—Do they have swords? Can I—Can I respond? Did they have swords? Mr. Dr. White, please. I will respond. Did I respond? Did they have swords? You're using—Are you using sword in this in the sense of the word sword, or in the in the way the sword we know about in like in European, in the East? You can scalp somebody with it. You and I can figure out what it is. I mean, you can scalp someone with a sword, with an axe, with a knife, whatever you want to use. I mean, you can—you can use a—Here's here's the metal gleam. I mean, we know what Joseph was explaining. We know what he—I would love to, because this is actually a beautiful, beautiful thing. I think our evangelical brothers and sisters, uh, uh, I think they would love this information, and I think your audience would like it. Um, a meerkat is not a mere cat. Hippopotamus in Greek means water hog or water horse. For Joseph Smith to say that these were horses, this is a—it's very fair that he saw an animal which they weren't riding. They're—they use them for meat, or they're—they're grazing in the Book of Mormon. What in the translating? Um, and so to say this was a horse, one, it very well could have been an actual horse, and there is some archaeology coming to back that up. The other answer is, if it wasn't a horse, well, it's been around for a while, but we're—they're still waiting to really present it full force, saying, "We know for a fact, but we're pretty positive there were horses." And actually, most Native American legends would agree with that, too. Native Americans know their history. Um, and so we could say, uh, it could have been a horse, but it's also fair to say if it wasn't a horse, in the Book of Mormon, they're not riding horses. They're not riding them holding swords. They're eating grass, or they're using them for clothing. So, it's fair to say he may have seen some animal that you would call a horse. And we do that. We've done that with animals. So much. We say, we say, um, buffalo, we're talking about northern bison. We say a meerkat because it looks like a cat, it's not a cat. We say a seahorse because it's got like that little spout, looks like a horse. So to say that Joseph Smith meant exactly what you think he meant, that isn't fair. Especially, especially with the context of knowing that there is archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, Nahom, Zenus, highways, fortresses. We know these things are true. So it's fair to say they also had those in China, which means the Book of Mormon actually took place in China. I'm sorry, this argumentation—no, that is not a valid argument. Absolutely, because that would mean Joseph Smith—three minutes. There—three minutes. Let him—let him. That would mean Joseph Smith was the best guesser of all time. He wasn't. He was a prophet. The Book of Mormon has archaeologically accurate information. The Book of Mormon has archaeologically accurate. Could you let him respond? Respond? I—I'm—I'm just simply pointing out that this kind of argumentation could be used to prove anything. That is the problem. It is the specificity of the claims of the Book of Mormon. When we—when I just asked the audience, compare the archaeological information that we have for both Old and New Testament sites, the cities, the material culture. Uh, the, for example, the Book of Mormon gives us a specific currency, uh, that was present amongst these people. Currency, especially when it is made of gold and silver, is the longest lasting element of material culture. We have never found anything anywhere in North America or Central America that has any—Well, name it. That's why I asked you for a limit. I—So here's what I'm going to say to you. Um, I was actually talking to a Native American friend who, um, well, I won't say friend, but Native American who, uh, is a Latter-day Saint, and he gets actually offended when people go and they try to compare archaeology of the Bible to the Book of Mormon. Why? And I—I'll say why. First reason is, to to hold them to the same standard is to pretend that colonization didn't happen, and that your, and that Protestant and Catholic people did not murder thousands of Native Americans, destroy culture, and commit genocide amongst people. So, one, we don't have lineages and history of many, many tribes of Native Americans. So to say, "Oh, the Book of Mormon isn't true because we don't have overwhelming evidence for it." One, we do have evidence. But two, to say it isn't true because of that is to discount and say that it's—it's to say that Native Americans and all of these cultures are not connected. No, it's not. It is absolutely not historical. Can I demonstrate why it is? Will you admit it if you're wrong? Um, because I'm not getting the feeling that you'll admit to anything that's wrong. Okay. Well, let's not. Let's not do personal attacks. Destruction of the Nephites took place when, according to the Book of Mor—It was about 1500 years ago when Moroni broke. And when did the, uh, Spanish arrive here? Um, oh boy, I don't know if there's—I can—I can give you the exact date. A good thousand years later, um, at least 900, 800 years. I'll—How in the world could they be responsible for the destruction of the archaeological material that you're talking about with lasers? Let me say, has nothing to do with the horrific things that they did. I'm actually really happy you, you said that because I would—I have a—I have a happy answer. Astounding to me. This is really astounding to me. Oh, well, you know what? Good. I'm happy. I'm happy I'm making you happy. So, we know when you study civilizations that things are passed down from one civilization to another, especially if it's the same area of land. So, Moroni buried the plates. Yes. Okay. And, and we know from new technology that there were these big cities that came to be. So if there were these cities, if there was—it was 15,000 more people in Guatemala than they thought before, and, and there were fortresses and highways. Okay. Well, that that worked with the Book of Mormon. He buries the plates. The Spanish come in. There are all these—there are thousands and thou—millions of indigenous people, and, uh, Europeans commit genocide and murder many of them. I think it's—I think everyone would agree that, uh, evidences and stories of and legends and and things that would connect to our Book of Mormon, um, brothers and sisters in the text, I think it's fair to say that a lot of that would be taken away and wiped out because of genocide. Do you know the number of indigenous people that died during the colonialism period? It's estimated to be 130 million. 130 million innocent people, well, I'll say people, I mean, murdered, and then, and then diseases spread. And these—this is a, a horrible atrocity. And, and so it's very right for a Native American who is a Latter-day Saint to say, "Wait a minute. You're saying this book isn't true because we don't have evidence for it. Guess what? We can't back up the the history of my people with evidence either." You're saying that didn't happen. They were murdered. That's how that's genoc—no. We're talking about archaeology, which we have. We're talking about physical reality. We're talking about actual coins. This has nothing—Oh my gosh. Do you think it's easier to find a highway buried or a coin that's buried? A coin is this big. A highway is this big. Which one are you going to find first? Coins last forever. I have coins from that time period. How much, how much, how much of ancient Mesoamerica have we dug up? That's where I find it fascinating. Is it—Well, that's where I'd like to percentage wise. That's where I'd like to bring what do you want to know? The conversation back to something I think that's more fundamental, because this is, I think, an important conversation to have. I think—well, I think it's—there's something more. Yeah. I haven't talked for about 30 minutes. I know you—you're very, you're very humble by and like very nice for letting us spar because it's—it's good. I appreciate it. Yeah, absolutely. So, I, I think one of the things that strikes me as peculiar in terms of when a Latter-day Saint says that they're representing the the same God that gave us the Bible, um, in terms of the argumentation for the Book of Mormon, for Joseph Smith, is I don't find in anything that you just said in terms of, "We need to look at the coins, archaeology, the history, the stuff in the Book of Mormon, uh, linguistics, these sorts of things." And that's how we'll know Joseph Smith's a prophet. That's how we'll know what the spirit tells you. That's how we'll know what he says is true. What I would point out to you is that if if you represent the God of this revelation, then I would say that whatever you're saying, your doctrine, your teaching needs to be consistent with what this God actually revealed to us. So, I'll just point out to you just a couple. I think it is consistent. Quickly, if I could just finish a thought. So, what I would say is that from the Old and New Testament, the the way that God discloses himself to us in terms of how to know his voice, how to know if a prophet is from him, how to know if if some teaching is true or right, is not in the way that you just described in terms of testing Joseph Smith via the Book of Mormon. God actually says in the Old Testament, a number of times, I can give you a number of examples. Deuteronomy 13, verses 1-4, 5. God actually says that even if somebody comes and has signs and wonders, they come up with an amazing book, they come up with this amazing thing, it looks beautiful, looks real, but they lead you after other gods, gods which you have not known, that's how you know they're a false prophet. So, God basically says, he states, and I'll let you respond to all this, he states that if somebody comes and it looks legit, but they lead you after a different god than me that I've revealed myself to you, that's how you know they're a false prophet. Of course, you know Deuteronomy 18. I'm sure you know that one. Uh, that's the text that says if they have false prophecy, they're a false prophet. But it goes on. Isaiah 8:20, God says, "To the law and to the testimony. If they don't speak according to this word, it is because they have no light in them." And I'll just point you to the New Testament, just these examples in terms of showing you that Jesus and the apostles held to this standard. In Mark chapter 7, Matthew 15, synoptic gospel situation there, uh, Jesus is handling controversy in his day where they're condemning basically his disciples for not following the tradition of the elders, what they, which they saw running alongside the Bible as essentially like divine tradition in a sense, you got to do these things. And what Jesus does is he confronts them because he says, Moses says, appealing to scripture, and he says, "But you say," and he appeals to their side authority running alongside the Bible, he says, "Thus you invalidate the word of God for the sake of your tradition." And I would point, of course, lastly, to the apostles constantly saying, "What does the scripture say? What does the scripture say? What does the scripture say?" And Paul cites what I believe to be one of the earliest Christian creeds in 1 Corinthians chapter 4 on this same line of this is this is biblical thought. And he says in 1 Corinthians chapter 4, I believe that's the text. He says, "Not to go beyond that which is written." Not to go beyond that which is written. In other words, don't go beyond that which is written. We're not to, as Christians, to go outside of what God's revealed word is. So the standard from Old Testament to New is the word of God is the principium. It's the foundation. It's the reference point. And I just want to point out to you, in terms of your defense of Joseph Smith and his revelation, you didn't appeal to anything in terms of, "What does God say?" You applied some secondary standard, which I would say is foreign to scripture. Um, so, well, that was a, that was a large buffet of things. Uh, so I, I'll try to respond to all. So the first one is, it's not that, uh, the the God of of the Book of Mormon is different from the God of the Bible. It's the same God. It's just that the Protestant Reformation and the European, uh, doctrine, uh, of the Bible is not the, the true interpretation of it. So it's not that we have a different God. Um, it's, it's the same God. I just think you folks are a little misread in your understanding of the Bible. So in terms of, in terms of the verses that I gave to you, though, okay, continue. So, um, it, it also says in Deuteronomy, you know, that you should not add on to this text and and things like that. And if that was true, we discount the the entire New Testament. When it says, "Don't add on to the Revelation," it means don't add on to that specific revelation. If I'm not—I didn't bring that up, though. That's a distortion of anything I aim. No, you just said not to add on, did you not? I may have misheard you, cuz there's a lot. Please repeat, then. I, I think I may have, I think I may have misheard. It's the same all, all of what I just gave to you just now from say Deuteronomy to Isaiah to Matthew, Mark, and 1 Corinthians with the Apostle Paul and a number of other references. All of it's the same theme. So it's not—I haven't given you a lot of things to think about. about if they given you one thing to think about in terms of a thematic thing from scripture is that the standard from the biblical authors, inspired prophets and apostles, and from Jesus is that the word of God is the central reference point, and it's the thing by which you test and measure any other revelatory claims. Absolutely. I agree. And, and what I was pointing out to you is that you, you didn't agree with that earlier in terms of you said the way to test Joseph Smith's revelation is by the Book of Mormon, linguistics, archaeology, these sorts of things. And I'm pointing out to you that is not what God says to do to test a prophet. He says test them according to his word. Well, thank you, actually. Thank you for saying that. I'd like to clarify if I, uh, gave any false impressions. Um, the Holy Spirit is what convicts you, and, and I think anyone who who has seen anything I've done knows that that is always what I go to first. But if you would like to have, uh, often times I talk to evangelicals, they want to know. They want to say they want, they want, um, they want evidence of the Book of Mormon, and they want archaeological evidence, and I give it to them, and they're often like blown for—well, that's the example I gave. I wasn't saying that's how you trust, you test the Book of Mormon. It's a way. Evidence is good, but evidence alone is just is just man-made. Fine. And if your, if your discipleship was built by man, it will be destroyed by man as well. Um, so I will, uh, so no, my, my, my way to test the Book of Mormon is not whole, hold up completely to to scientific research. It's, it is with the Holy Spirit. I mean, in terms of Joseph Smith's revelation, because when you introduced that subject, you said it in terms of knowing whether or not what he said was true. And a good way to test that is the Book of Mormon. And it's a spiritual test. But if you want to be, you know, less less, uh, spiritual with it and and more, uh, uh, archaeological with it, you can also do that. And it wins both. It's reliable spiritually, and we have evidence of. Let's do that. So, we're going on the same course here. So in terms of spiritually, from the same God, the disclosure is the same. God has disclosed himself. He's revealed himself to us. God says, "Here's how you're to test a prophet according to my word and my previous revelation." So when I look at Joseph Smith's revelation, say in the King Follett Discourse, and I compare that revelation, uh, with what God has told us about himself for millennia before Joseph Smith came and revealed himself, I disagree with you even in that phrasing. So, what do you disagree with there? Um, I disagree with your phrasing, making it sound as if, uh, that, uh, the Bible just says one thing, and the Joseph Tanu thing, it's, it's consistent. Well, that's what I'm getting to. So, I haven't got a chance to express what I'm what I'm getting at. So, in terms of in in scripture, um, we have Revelation from Genesis to, sorry, yeah, Revelation from Genesis to the book of Revelation. This spans, uh, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years, and all these different authors, all the different books and letters. And yet there's this unified message and thread from God, his own revelation of himself. He tells us how to test things, how to test prophets. And in that revelation, God says about himself, as an example, he says, just Psalm 90:2. We can go to a number of other texts. We just did John chapter 1 already, but a number of other texts says, "From eternity into eternity, you are God. From eternity into eternity, you are God." God has been God from all eternity into all eternity. Now, as a Christian, when I know that that's God's revelation, then Joseph Smith comes along, a 19th century American prophet comes along and

says that's what he is long. I'm trying to get and put him in a timeline here in terms of when biblical revelation was given, and Joseph comes along and he says this. He says, "We've imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I'll refute that idea and take away and do away the veil so that you may see."

Yes. Now, I have a question. Who's doing the imagining that God has been God from all eternity?

So, well, it's a great question. First, uh, like I said, um, God all eternity, eternity to eternity. Um, you can spar back and forth. You can say, "Well, then Olam, does that exactly mean eternity? Does that mean, you know, like far back as you can think?" As far back as you can think if you want to go into the Hebrew. I'm and then you put into the ancient context of well, when they say this, you know, that you use this kind of language, well, then other societies are also using this kind of language. What does it mean? The the the the issue I find is that your interpretation of it is not the wait, no, no, no. Well, let me finish. The interpretation of eternity to eternity is not what this means in the English sense. In the in the ancient Semitic Near Eastern uh definition, it's not eternity in the way we think of it. It's it's not as just forever, forever, forever with no clear definition of forever. And the the confusion of of of people coming later and saying, "Well, that's guess that's what that means." And then, "Oh, God God's ungraspable. We don't understand God. Guess it you have you can't really have a personal relationship with that. You can't grasp all these things." Joseph Smith wasn't refuting what the Bible says. He was refuting what the false interpretation of what the Bible says.

Well, I think. Well, I I I don't agree with you there. I think I I would say that he pretty much defines what he means in terms of what he's coming against. He says very clearly, and this is part of what you believe today. You believe that that the Father told Joseph Smith that to join none of the churches, for they're all wrong. All their creeds are an abomination. The professors are corrupt. Draw near to me with their lips. Their hearts are far from me. You believe that. You believe that there was a great apostasy. Absolutely. You know that Joseph Smith was responding often times to doctrine and teaching from the Christian church. So when he says in the King Follett discourse, near the end of his life, he says that we've imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity, he says, "I'll refute that idea and take away and do away the veil so that you may see. You've got to learn to become gods yourselves the same way all gods have done before you." He is most certainly responding to what the Christian church has been teaching. And by the way, what Jews had been teaching uh long before the time of Christ.

No, not necessarily. Um, well, I think we got to go to the the the documents themselves and read here in these in these texts. But and I just want to point out to you here that that's the main point of contact in terms of who we're going to believe. Are we going to believe God? We believe the Bible. And so because we believe the Bible, we also believe Joseph Smith. Okay. And that's and that's where the challenges because Joseph Smith's revelation contradicts the revelation from God.

Well, that's why we disagree. Okay. I'll give you a couple examples. That that that same Bible says that God is the first, the last, the beginning, and the end. The same yesterday, today, and forever, from eternity into eternity. So we're not talking about a single verse. Is it poetic? To what extent? It's something that's a thread that runs through and through the revelation of God. Dr. White read to you today John chapter 1 where in John chapter 1 it says in the beginning was the Word. I'm putting that down on record so people can go research themselves. In the beginning, go back as far as you want. There's no reference point to stopping. This is not a doctrine that you can say is it is it that one verse there that's poetic. This is a thread through and through where God's grand revelation of himself is this. I'm going to say this to you. He is the only true and living God. He has been God from all eternity. He will be God from all eternity. Everlasting.

What does everlasting mean? Uh, forever ago. See, see, and this is the issue again. Joseph Smith is not um contradicting the original word of God. Even though he says that God became God. Yes. Because that's true. That's what happened. And so the respond you just talked for like five minutes.

Well, now now we're exchanging because you're bringing up points in response. So I'll I'll respond to what you just said. You see, the biblical text isn't ambiguous on this point. Many people would disagree with you. I think it is. Let me quote the text here then. Isaiah 40. Let's do a number. Isaiah 44:3, 10. "Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I am the first and I am the last. You don't believe either of those statements. And besides me, there is no God." And I tell you, I can go to the exact same language.

Respond to that text in Isaiah 44. Thank you. I will. I can find the exact same language used in other civilizations.

Respond to Isaiah 44. In other civilizations, it's it's a way to heighten your covenant with the god. It's almost, you could call it, if you want to call it, you call it ancient smack talk.

Pointed out. Well, it doesn't have mental reality. Dr. White. With all due respect, you haven't. You haven't. You have not. You've said You have said things.

Okay. Well, how about this? I haven't listened. I'll say it. I'll say this. I think. Well, heard. I have I have listened to you. I've listened to you for quite some time. Listen, I've listened to you. I just don't think it's accurate. Okay. You are wrong. And here's why you're wrong. Okay. One of us, two of us is wrong. I'm saying it's you. Okay. When you quote from Assyrian religion or from Egyptian religion, the fundamental reality of these religious systems is that they believe that their gods were derived from the creation. They did not believe that. That has nothing to do with the language used. That's a different subject. You have no interest in hearing from someone who has studied this subject much longer than you have. I would I can I try one more time? I want to propose one more time. I hey, I've listened to you a lot. I I do have interest. I watched your wonderful lecture. Let's do his proposal then your response. You have religious systems that believe their gods were derived from the creation and hence are not the foundation and creator of creation itself. You can use all the similar language you want. The reality is the biblical writers do not have that foundation. The biblical writers do not believe that God came out of the creation. From the beginning, I've been telling you that what makes Jehovah different is that he's the creator of all things. They do not. You cannot find that in their language and therefore false. You absolutely can. Show me. You ab okay. All right. Let's let's do this. Um, show me, show me where they believed that their god. You are the sole one who made all that exists. One alone who made that which is that is talking about um this is the gate kairoim to ammon ra, the sole one who exists that all that exists, all that exists, all that exists, you know, Egyptian religion, and you think that that is an extensive claim of creation of everything? You hear what I'm saying? Tell me something about Horus.

Well, I I I'll tell you what I do know about Horus. Horus is often used as an example to show why from from the atheist perspective of why Jesus is not valid. I disagree with that. Um, so there are many people who like to show similarities between Horus and Jesus. I don't think that's very, you know, I might be wrong. I agree 100%. The point is that if you understand how these gods came to have the positions that they did, they did so because of their deeds and what they did. The creation had to pre-exist them. So when they make these statements, they are not stating they're that everything that exists is dependent upon since they have plural gods. You just asked me a question. I want you to find where it says that they made everything that exists and I showed you. The thing is I'm saying that polytheistic system where the gods themselves are born from other gods. First of all, to discuss though, okay, there there's a bigger umbrella issue here. Um, the umbrella issue here is, um, I believe that the God of the Bible and the God of the Book of Mormon are the same God. You believe I'm following a different God, a false god, false Christ. But here's the issue. Um, and I don't mean to derail too much, but don't you believe in predestination and things like murder and the Holocaust are predestined to happen because you're a Calvinist? Don't you believe that God predestined the Holocaust to happen?

There is absolutely positively nothing in this universe that is purposeless. God predestined the Holocaust to happen. So if is everything is is God glorified by everything? That's another question I have to ask.

Let him answer. See, here's here's the problem. You didn't listen to what I said.

I did. Okay. Then then talk then what did I say?

You said nothing in this universe is purposeless. And so you're probably going to say if the Holocaust happened, if it didn't happen because God predestined, it happened purposelessly, which is purposelessly, which is which is even worse. I think it's worse. So that's what you would say if it happens purposely. Do you think it's better that God wound this universe up, didn't see that coming and went, "Oh man, there's nothing I can do about it now."

Well, he gives us free agency. Ah, I think God is the one with the free agency. Well, I think we have the right. I think people can choose. Um, but don't you believe that? Do you believe that God predestined the sex trafficking that happens in Houston where I'm from?

Again, there is nothing. Yes. Yes. Yes. So, here's here's what I want to give to your audience. I would love eternity is a part of God's sovereign decree, which is what A makes it purposeful, B makes the redemption that Jesus Christ accomplishes upon the cross so specific, perfect, and glorifying to God.

But do you really believe that though? Because let's say a little Hindu girl is is kidnapped and she is sold into.

Let me I will continue. A little Hindu girl is taken and she is sold into trafficking. You believe she, that happened. God predestined her to be trafficked and murdered. And then you also believe, you also believe she's going to hell after. So God predestined her to be tortured and killed and go to hell and decided all that before. That's a major issue. I see.

Let me jump in here real quick. Well, I have one more point. That's a major issue because you're saying I believe in God. You believe in a God that predestined and wanted and was glorified by the Holocaust happening and is glorified and wanted sex trafficking to happen and slavery to happening. You. This is not if if you want to go in the same God thing. I don't believe in the God that predestined when the Holocaust to happen. You're right. I believe in the true God.

Predestined the cross? Yes or no?

Yes or no? I believe I do believe that God uh planned for the crucifixion to happen. I do not believe he planned or wanted for the Holocaust to happen. That's the difference between you and I.

Ever anyone more innocent than Jesus Christ? Well, of course not. Okay. So God predestined the horrific crucifixion and murder of the most innocent man who ever existed. Which means that's significantly greater than any example you've given me because every person you just mentioned was a sinner rightly under the wrath of God. You recognize that Acts chapter the Holocaust was the wrath of God. Every person who dies in this world is under the wrath of God.

Good. Happy for that clarification. All right. That's what I said. Well, so you accept that the most innocent person in the world was predestined to die upon a gory cross orained and that's what Acts chapter 4 says. But then you struggle that there is a purpose to everything else that someday we will find out. I understand.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Not purpose. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying you believe that everything glorifies God. You believe that God predestines everything to happen.

God predestined will glorify God in the working out of the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. There's a difference. No, there there is a difference. Here's the issue though. Believing that the Holocaust happened not because of man's free agency and wickedness, but because God predestined it to happen. That's a.

If you ask me, I don't like to get into. You just have no idea what we believe. Uh, well, I would like to. I don't want to get into the semantics. I don't want to get into the semantics. Well, I think of different god, different god. But I do I would say it's fair to say that I don't think it can necessarily be declared the exact same God. If you believe that God predestined and and and made so little girls and boys are sex trafficked and murdered and left into hell. God does not do that. He doesn't do it. He doesn't do it. And they're not of God. They're not of God. They're not of God if you ask me.

Then your God made that happen and just didn't have a purpose and wasn't smart enough to make things work out right.

Mankind made that happen. No. So here's the issue. We're not hearing. Hold on. Now my turn to step in. My turn. All right. Okay. So, here's what you're here's what you're neglecting to notice is that not only are you promoting uh a god that is not the God of the scriptures. The God who says he declares the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have not been done saying my purpose will be established and I will accomplish all my good pleasure. Our God is in the heavens. He does whatever he pleases. Whatever the Lord pleases, he does in heaven and on earth, in the seas and in all the deeps. That's not the God of Mormonism.

It absolutely is. If I could finish, you just said that it wasn't because you said that your God was impotent and had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Um, he the only thing God had to do with the Holocaust. My God, my God, my God declared the end from the beginning. And even in the midst of a rebellious, hostile, evil, wicked world of people who are at war with their creator, he still was able to sovereignly wield his purposes and control in a fallen world. The Holocaust did not surprise my God. My God was in charge of the.

God wanted the Holocaust to happen? Oh, my God was absolutely. My God was absolutely determined to glorify himself through everything that happens in this world. Watch. Through either his grace or his justice, God will be glorified.

Did God want the Holocaust to happen? Yes or no? If if he did not, it is a purposeless evil. I'm answering and I want I want your audience to see this. This is not this is not a good thing. I'm answering you and you're not you're not listening.

I am listening. Here's here's the problem I'm having with you and I mean this with respect to you. Often times things are said to you and before the words leave my mouth, you've already responded before actually hearing what I have to say.

Well, to be fair, that's all three of us are doing. Let me just say it to you again. Let me just let me just I'm trying to respond to each and every point you make. So what I said to you was that if God didn't determine that, then it's something that was purposeless evil in your scheme. What happened in the Holocaust was outside of the control of God and it was purposeless evil. Evil men thwarted your God. In in the Bible, in the Bible, God declares the end from the beginning, and he accomplishes his will and purpose in heaven and on earth. And no human being, no matter how mighty and strong from a human perspective, can thwart my God.

Um, I would love to respond to that. And I want I hope you're if your audience is still listening because oh boy, we've gone for a while. Um, well, you brought up predestination. I did bring up predestination. And the issue is it's not that my God was the true God. Um, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine of Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. It's not that Heavenly Father was surprised by it. Heavenly Father gives us agency to decide what we do because that's an entire part of the eternal process and growing and and if we're going to be alive forever, we're going to have to learn choice. The issue is God, if he were to just interject and control all of our agency, our existence means nothing. We're just puppets. Who's And so the And so I want people to to remember that God gives us agency. The Nazis, the uh people who lit people in fire, the the Calvinist Puritans who burn people at the stake. Um, slave owners, sex traffickers. How about Mountain Meadows? How about Mountain Meadows massacre? Oh, I'd love to talk about. God does not determine those things. God does not want those things to happen. That's mankind. God did not want the Holocaust to happen. God did not want colonialism or slavery to happen. And I want everyone watching to know that you have a Father in Heaven who loves you. And I want everyone stop and will always be on your side.

Listen, listen to me. I need you to hear me very seriously now. You're invited on this show to have a dialogue. The one thing you will not be allowed to do on a Christian show is proselytize for the Mormon church. So I'll tell you, you can defend your position and we can debate, but you will not be allowed to proselytize on Apologia Radio. So that's just that's just that's just a warning. So you can defend your position, you can argue your position, but you cannot proselytize on this show.

Well, haven't Well, what you're doing. Sorry. Haven't I haven't I been doing that the whole time? No, you've been you've been you've been having and engaging conversation with two Christians. We've been going back and forth, but you will not be allowed to proselytize on this show. As though as in the same way I would not be able to proselytize for the triune God of scripture on your show.

Oh, uh, well, we we would let Yeah. We would let you. Fantastic. Have me over in Salt Lake. I'd be happy to do it. Um, so go ahead, Dr. White. Do you have something you want to say?

Okay. God does not predestine the Holocaust to happen. God loves us. So, so let me just uh point a couple things out and we'll end the show with this. You you demonstrated and I I hope you spend time working on this area. you demonstrated in how you illustrated these things that you you don't in fact understand the reformed position that you're so you're so strongly arguing against. And so I just want to encourage you to spend more time on this subject in terms of understanding what we actually believe because absolutely I do not have a firm. I do not have a complete grasp on. You don't have an accurate. I think I have a grasp. Many, many, many more hours studying Mormonism and reading the original sources uh than than you have. You don't know that. So you don't even know Dr. White, you met me today. When's my birthday? Then you have horoscope in regards to Christianity. Um, again, you you just you look, I think that we've made a lot of assumptions today. I just want to.

We can. Wait a minute. Are you claiming to have done more study of historical Christian theology than I have of Mormonism?

Um, I don't know your life or anything you've done. Well, I know somewhat you've done. I don't know your life. Um, I'm not going to make any claims about you as a person or any or you and what you like. I don't I don't want to attack any of your beings or your the point was making there and you're being. I think the problem is you're being so defensive even on on minimal points we're trying to make here that really not it's not necessary to be defensive over it. He was just responding in terms of my saying to you that you need to spend more time understanding this because the way that you illustrated.

I will read all of these. I'm so glad you will. I mean that seriously. Um, but the way you illustrated what reformed people believe about the will of man and choice and everything else demonstrates that you don't you haven't spent the time. You you asked. I can tell you with all that's in me, you you don't and you're you're reflecting it completely inaccurately. Uh, reformed folks. I would say the Apostle Paul, Jesus and Peter and all the reformers uh did not believe do not believe uh that man is a robot, that he's not making choices that are willing choices that he wants to make, that God is controlling people in terms of making them do things they didn't want to do. We believe what the Bible teaches about the will of man where the Bible teaches whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. But God does predestine that sin to happen.

Hold on. Yeah. Well, I believe absolutely God's in control of all things. So the Bible teaches about the will of man. Whoever commits sin is a slave to sin. That we are dead in our sins and trespasses by nature, children of wrath. That we are hostile sinners, rebels, helpless, wicked. I'm quoting scripture now. Before God, that's our condition. So you describe mankind in terms of you talk about a free will, but the Bible agency. Yes. But the Bible talks about the will of man in terms of it's enslaved to sin, it's dead. We are alienated from God, hostile towards God. That's how the Bible describes our will. So all of humanity, those who were involved in the Holocaust, those who were involved in colonialism and everything else that you described, those were hostile rebel sinners against a a holy God. And they were making choices freely. They wanted to do it. And when God allows God actually restrained them. That's right. And when God removes his restraining hand sometimes from the wicked hearts of men, sometimes you get the Holocaust. Sometimes you get uh Georgia early on in America. Sometimes you get all of these wicked moments where God removes the restraining hand and you see the evil that is really in men's hearts.

However, he removed his restraining hand, but he put it forth already. He wanted it to happen. He predestined it to happen. And you believe it's going to happen. I don't. I absolutely. That's the difference. I see. I do. And here's here's the problem. Until your heart is changed and your eyes are open, you will never ever want to worship a God who is actually sovereign, who is actually not like you, who is actually not in the created order like yourself.

I all I can say to that all I can say to that is that I worship and follow the true God of the Holy Bible and the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine of Covenants for a great price. It's that's what I that's what I believe. When we will disagree. I don't believe that um that God predestines wickedness and evilness to happen. Evilness. Gosh. I don't believe he predestined those things. I think that is horrid. I think that's an evil doctrine. And it no way shows that God is loving because it's not accurate. I think that and also just to be clear, the reformed position.

Well, let's test me right now. Let's see if I got this right. Okay. Hold on. I just want you to know if you're going to continue this on, this is how much we're already about two and a half hours in, maybe more. So, maybe we should maybe we should maybe we should we can continue a conversation later and I'd be happy to do it. But I just want you to know if you open a can of worms. We're going to go for like an hour.

How about this? It might be more reasonable that we close it out then. Yeah, let's close it out and I'd be happy to have you on again or we could even do it by radio conversation. Have have me on the three Mormons and allow me to proselytize like you just said I could.

I I if uh well, how about this? I will fight for you to be able to come on to come and preach the biblical gospel and the biblical Jesus. Preach the reformed gospel, but it's only 13 minutes long. Yeah, that's right. The Jesus. Yeah, we do a short. The Jesus who is actually the creator of Satan and not his brother. Uh, well, let me you let me preach that brother of Lucifer, not Satan. Well, you get you get the point that we're talking about. We're brothers, so they're brothers, right? But the Jesus who created Lucifer, you let me promote that and teach that on your show.

Did the Father or the Son create Lucifer? If you understood the doctrine of the Trinity, you wouldn't be asking. Well, I don't think people can understand the doctrine of the Trinity. It's a mystery. My kids can. If you read John chapter 1 verses 1-3 and Colossians 1:16 and on, you'll see that it says that Jesus Christ created Satan and everything in existence and nothing's come into being except through him. That's a different question. So not the Father. The Father, Son, and Spirit work together in perfect harmony, the creation of all things. So then, so it's not just Jesus then. It's all three that created. You see, it's one God. It's one God created all things. The Trinitarian look at that verse doesn't make sense because.

But what we what we're not escaping from is my point was you would you you said you'd allow me on the show or try to fight for me on the show to preach that Jesus and I hope that you follow through with that because I would love to do it. But I can't actually. I don't. So I don't like. I can only propose it's a whole. It's, you know, it's a group of people. That's fine. I understand. But please fight for it. I'll even I'll even pay my own way. But uh John 1 verses 1 through 3 and Colossians 1:16 and onward is what I'd point you to in terms of who the real Jesus says.

"Thank you for having the courage to be on the show today. Thank you so much for coming. I'm sorry if it got heated. I'm sorry. I'm sorry that there was some there was some tension. I didn't want for that."

No, no, no. I'm I I love you and we care about you. Obviously, we're all passionate and I think one of the things I respect about you and I mean this is that you um I I I we've talked about this quite a bit. I have wanted for so long to run into the young Mormon that is passionate about their beliefs that wants to go to the mat that wants to defend him because I want to tell you that for the last decade and a half I've been outside talking to Mormons on the street who are are just not as engaged and as courageous as you are. So I want to thank you for that. Uh so Dr. James White, thank you so much brother for being on the show. Next week, very important um uh debate you have in Florida. Please be praying for Dr. White and Dr. Michael Brown. They're going to bring be bringing the gospel into a very difficult context. Please be praying for that. Lift them up. And um I I have to tell you how I'm I'm really fighting again. My sanctification is happening right now because Dr. White bought you the most amazing Bible ever. And I don't have a Bible like that. Jeff doesn't even have one. I don't even have one like that. Was a good gift. It's a hu It's an amazing gift. You don't understand. There's men over there right now like drooling over that gift that you have on the table right now. So guys, alphamega ministries.com. I hope you make it. I hope you make it out of the of the studios. That's right. They're looking a little they're a little big. They're trying to grab it. So, uh, three Mormons, quu, thank you so much. Been a blessing to us. Thank you everybody who wa everybody who's been watching. There's over a thousand people watching live. Oh my. Pretty much the whole time. Yeah, it's been it's been great. Thank you for watching, guys. Make sure you guys share it. We'll catch you guys next time on Apologia TV or radio, sorry. Go to apologia studios.com for more. Thank you.