This broadcaster has 165 podcast archives available on-demand.
Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.
January 10, 2021 12:01 am
In this episode the sons of light continue their discussion of the sacraments with a deep dive on the Lord's Supper. They kick it off with a question about comparing and contrasting their experience with the "sacrament" as latter-day saints and their experience with the Lord's Supper as Christians.
Beginning with all things were made through him and without him was not anything made that was made in him was life and the life was the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it. We were all born and raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, commonly referred to as the Mormon all of us have left that religion have been drawn to faith in Jesus Christ based on teachings name of our podcast outer brightness reflects John 19 calls Jesus, the true light gives light to every we have found life beyond Mormonism to be brighter than we were told in the light, we have is not our own. It comes to us from without. Thus, outer brightness. Our purpose is to share our journeys of faith in what God has done in drawing us to his son. We have conversations about all aspects of the transition fears, challenges, joys, and everything in between were glad you found us and we hope you'll stick around listening to our greatness podcast for post-Mormons who are drawn by God, to walk with Jesus rather than turn away out of this brightness brightness wailing and gnashing of teeth. Here except for Michael's finger that is angry that is angry.
That is why Matthew, the nuclear columnist Michael BX Mormon apologist Paul Bunyan the fourth LDS article of faith states. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. Our first faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Second, repentance third baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. Fourth laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. In our previous episode of the outer brightness podcast. We each discussed our past experiences as Latter Day Saints related to the nest necessity of baptism and the sacrament but most Christians refer to as the Lord's supper, communion, etc. whether differences and viewpoints on the sacraments or ordinances disrupt the unity of the Christian church and how we now prepare and receive the Lord's supper and baptism as born-again Christians.
In this episode we would like to take a closer look at the subject as full-time missionaries for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Every during every weekly meeting at least for those of us were young FTs preach my gospel, sorry Paul, we restarted the following. Our purpose is to invite others to come into Christ by helping them receive the restored gospel through faith in Jesus Christ and his atonement, repentance, baptism receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost and enduring to the end we were taught and we taught others that without question, except for those who passed away before the age of eight. Age of accountability.
Water baptism and confirmation were absolutely necessary ordinances that everyone must receive from a Latter Day Saints priesthood holder to be eligible to enter the celestial kingdom, the highest of the 3° of heaven. There were no if's and's or but's. If someone did not receive the restored gospel which included faith, repentance, water baptism by immersion in the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, he or she must receive these ordinances by proxy in the LDS Temple.
There is just no getting around it. In previous episodes. We've described our personal journeys out of the LDS church and toward biblical Christianity and continuing our faith journeys. One topic that was of particular concern to me was what water baptism is what it signifies, who must receive it and whether it is still an absolute requirement for eternal life. The same is true for the sacrament.
Why do Christians do it, do they believe the same things that I did about it. Does God do anything in the sacrament or is it a memorial only during this episode we hope to address some of these questions and describe how we have grown in our understanding of Scripture concerning water baptism and the Lord's supper will also dive into passages that we often used as LDS missionaries to demonstrate that we must receive baptism in order to be saved and reconsider whether this is still the case.
While we three may have differing views on these topics.
We recognize that there is room for disagreement based on the teachings of the word of God. We all recognize this to be an important topic in the baptism and communion are commanded to be observing Christchurch by the Lord himself while he may not understand them in the same way.
We acknowledge that we are brothers in Christchurch and that we each are seeking to follow him to be conformed to his image and that we must be willing to be teachable Christians journey never ends and we hope that this discussion will be enlightening and help you along our continuing faith journey brought this episode the words, ordinances, and sacraments may be used interchangeably depending on our own personal beliefs while recognizing that these terms are not always synonymous. We also recognize that some traditions view a differing number of total sacraments or ordinances, but following the previous episode titled what about sacraments ordinances we will be limiting our discussion to the historic Protestant view that the sacraments ordinances comprise baptism by water in the Lord's supper for an extended discussion on this, we recommend listening to these previous episodes.
Thanks for joining us fireflies before jumping her one of just want to acknowledge the fact that this this topic.
Where were talking about sacraments has been the longest that we spent on any one topic so far. At the end of it, it's probably going to end up being a six part episode where each part is about an hour long, which I think is interesting to get your thoughts guys before we jump back in tonight on why you think that is is is a time to the fact that for four Latter Day Saints. These topics will be very important as they make a transition or is it that was you should never let Matthew write an episode guide again, which is well, I mean we Artie tried to take him off the list for writing episodes and I think it was subconscious, but now you mention it, yeah, I'm still at the serious thought, I think you done a great job in prep your math unit and I think it think these topics are important right have conversations with Latter Day Saints. One of the first things they go to is this baptism necessary right so I think it's the kind of going into these topics really in depth.
So just want to make a point.
As part of part of the episode guide Michael yeah we just just in light of what you are saying there. Paul is really important to talk about these subjects, because for one thing Latter Day Saints to see that they're not the only ones that did take baptism and in communion seriously that there is a lot of thought, you know that the people taken into account with that. Also, it'll not saying that if they were to leave Mormonism and become a Protestant, but that necessarily means that they have to throw out everything you know there's definitely still a value in those and they can step right into that and I think that's that's why that's important for us to talk about to say that the reason I wanted to talk about these passages is partially what you touched on balls that I think Latter Day Saints or one okay I should say when I was Latter Day Saints I didn't know that Christians really dug into the Bible so deeply as they do in regards to church life in regards to officers of the church sacraments, like all you know basically the whole religious walk of the Christian life is based on Scripture and you know I kind of thought of it is like well you know that what really good intentions. They probably read the Bible really like it but they probably follow these things just because it's Catholic tradition. You know it's passed down from their their church leaders and their church leaders before them there like this is just the way we do it you know so that I was consciously passing on tradition, but then when you really study the Bible.
They say this is why we believe this. This is why we you know we we only do it this way and you know the still differences of opinion on certain passages, but they're all diving into the text and are trying to honor the Lord by doing it the way he wants to do it. So that really surprised me and and and also reduced just due to the fact that one at one of the last things I held onto his lardy saying was like okay the reason why our church is true and theirs is not as we have the only correct ordinances.
The only efficacious ordinances and that's what's going to get me into the kingdom of heaven is like death was to get me through the gate is my baptism. I confirmation my endowment my priest at all that so that when I realize that we can have a personal direct connection with God like oh I think Michael Stubbs had had similar feelings. In the past reason he's expired cyclical. If I can go greatly to God. I don't need these ordinances and this priesthood is not what I thought it was then cycled and what purpose do they serve no. Why am I in the yesterday knows Kelly really confusing like that was a lot, probably the last one of the last threads help me into the church so the idea of leaving it is scary to Latter Day Saints because I like will baptism so important to me.
My baptism is important you know I enjoy take the sacrament. Every week it's important for my life and I can't give that up and then if we can show them okay we don't have to give it up.
You just have to have a you know you can have a more biblical and faithful view of these things and you can partake of them. Maybe not every week, but you can partake of them in a church setting, and it is part of a Christian life so you know it's like it's it's not just leading Latter Day Saints out of their church. It's it's what we lead them into and were trying to create that bridge if all we do is say if all we do is burn down the village you know then they'll come out running and screaming but don't have anywhere else to go. So it's more about building a bridge from point A to point B where they can feel comfortable and you know safe taking that plunge leaving the church in finding a good church to worship so sounds really long-winded answer that I was planning on being that long-winded, but it just seems like that's a really key point of what my old test. My former test line was was the ordinances of the LDS church, and so explaining alike okay in the Bible. This is how they are from a biblical perspective than you know. Maybe that helps Latter Day Saints to realize where there may be some issues there may be some fences think that's a good response for sure. I really do think it's important that we spent the time here on on this topic and that's that's why I brought about when I was editing the other day, look at how many hours of this topic you have. I thought while that's that's really telling about how important this is. In the transition so it's good just going to the passages of Scripture to baptism because only times they point out acts two 3839 and John 35 it's like while you can get to heaven without baptism, and so ended up with what's really interesting to his Mormons. The hammer in the baptism so heavily they act like if they can prove that one thing that somehow it's going to prove that their entire church is true you. It's like saying this if I just get the home base in playing baseball then I've got a home run and that's simply not true.
You know they're just there just isn't enough evidence for the rest of everything that they know teach that there are no temple ordinances that you have to go through an endowment of the have to be married and sealed so just just going off of that one thing, baptism which they focused so heavily on it really isn't accomplishing what they think it is. That's great. I was jumping this week. Having discussed water baptism must move on to the Lord's supper. The Lord's table or communion as a latter-day St.
What did the sacrament in the bread and water mean to you what purpose did it serve and why was it done every single week and how is your view changed and why.
So maybe maybe we can wait. Why don't know what we could target our views. Now how it's changed is our view guys when I do it is an open discussion. So whoever wants to go first on go ahead and tackle this one so as latter-day St. unit is being hundred percent symbolic of the shed blood and flesh of Christ on our behalf mainly sacrament prayers even say that we are taking the bread and water, that we may always remember him that we may have a spirit to be with us. So it's just a symbol to help us remember Jesus and now we took it every week because we needed to renew our covenants. That is what was hammered into us. You know the whole time I was growing up. It's interesting that we can all see Latter Day Saints will have 11 of two theologies for what that actually means to renew their covenants and so one of those is like, like how you renew your car insurance you know when you sin it actually breaks it actually goes away.
So you're not covered anymore and so you've got to renew it so that you will be covered again in the other thought is more like a wedding foul renewal like you know the wedding or the marriage never stopped but you can renew those vowels and is just is just something you can do. The problem with thinking about it in terms of what a wedding vow renewal is that basically you are starting to believe in eternal security. At that point, and I'm seeing a lot of Latter Day Saints these days kinda taking that that kind of a position, but for me, you know, I believe that by the time I was taking the sacrament. Every week I was in sin and I was no longer in Christ, and I think my biggest fear every week was that Christ would come back on Saturday before I had the chance to take the sacrament and Sunday would come when I would take the sacrament, and I believe that they claim it cleansed me and I thought okay now would be a really good time for Christ to come back and so I constantly was just living in fear no Wednesday through Saturday of the second coming happening because I just never felt like I was like I was worthy. And I needed that sacrament to cleanse me again. So that's how I viewed it at the time course now I believe that you have been justified up and forgiven of all sins past, present and future, and so I don't have that same fear on Saturdays actually enjoy my Saturdays a lot for now than I did as a latter-day St. So to me the sacrament is really it shows me the gift of God's love and his grace and that he died for me while it was still a sinner while I was still rebellious and that gift was still offered to meet this time view it now that it is something that I can take you not only remember Christ but but to partake in that gift you in the divine gifts that have been given. Now thinking about how you talk about how is it like a renewal of a marriage covenant. It's it's interesting anything about like that because it's really the same lease out is how I saw latter-day St. because when you renew a marriage covenant. It's not like you need to renew the marriage covenant or else it lapses do not mean where is Leah when you when you when you're taking the sacrament you need to constantly renew that are else your baptism. Basically becomes ineffective because the baptism is meant to cleanse your sins. Well, if you keep racking up the sensor don't take the sacrament. It's almost as if like being baptized did nothing for you and I mean so it's interesting. Just think about that because I think I've I thought about that too.
I thought about it is like a marriage covenant with God and it's like renewing it every week you not to remember him. But when you really think about and break it down it doesn't quite fit. Think. No, I don't think so either, especially when you know the bishops you if you confess certain sins to a bishop though tell you not to take the sacrament you know what it's like, okay, like you have to have a certain amount of worthiness to even take it and get it's not supposed to be taken unworthily, so cut ends up putting you into this this conundrum sometimes but I don't think you can view it and in the LDS church is just being like a wedding foul renewal because there's actually you have this sense all the time that it's been broken.
You've broken your covenants. That is the worst thing that you can possibly do in the church know what I thought I I didn't think of this until now and I should have it would've actually been really nice to really break down the prayer that they use in the sacrament and talk about that because it seems to me at least, that the bread and the water kind contradicted each other. It seemed like the bread talks about no are you living the commandments are you start doing this are you doing that and then the water says you desire to keep the commandments. You know, so that's what I helped as latter-day St. it's like will have the desire, I'm not doing a perfectly released.
I have the desire assignments I can take it or not. Did you guys want to talk more about that or is that kind of going off on a tangent. I might be. Might be interesting point to talk about super cool to talk about it and I kinda didn't think about it either, until I was quoting and quoting that prayer. But I totally forgot about the prayers as he called, look over anything because that is not going to farming.
We have a lot of questions already kinda formulated but since I want to talk about it every week. You know it's it's it's bludgeoning their brain to be cool to talk about feel stupid.
My thoughts in here before so Michael and Matthew will touch on a couple of things that were common to my experience as well so Mike is 11 miles latter-day St.
I viewed the sacrament word for supper is an ordinance done in remembrance of Jesus's sacrifice for the remembrances when you talk about Michael coming from the room sacrament prayers. The bread was was just a symbol of Christ's body and the water was just a symbol of his blood there is no know transubstantiation or anything like that take place fully symbolic, and Michael, as you noted, was the purpose was as a renewal of the baptismal covenant. I liked what you said about two different ways to view that as a slick insurance renewal versus Leica wedding vow renewal, but my understanding was that it was intended to a time of reflection on whether or not I have lived worthily of Jesus's sacrifice of the prior week or whether I have sent and be honest for me and Melissa. In my experience, latter-day Sam was a time of mental self-flagellation because I knew every every refitted past that I had not been perfect right and that's that's that's kind of what you presented as is needing to be right if you send in some way, then you have to renew the covenant as as Michael was saying and and and if you send in some way than the covenant made. Baptism is broken so it was a time that I I would beat myself up over every little way that that I said the week before and fallen short, and repentance.
And I would covenant to try to be better in the coming week. But honestly, it was a time of self-condemnation wasn't wasn't an enjoyable experience.
So to contrast that with with kind how I view it now. I view the Lord's supper now is an act of worship at the time of praise to my Lord for what he's done taking away my sin and canceling the record that the student density and mailing it to the cross and I think it's fascinating to throw in a note of contrast here so I just paraphrased.
Colossians 214, and I don't remember ever hearing that passage quoted during my time in the LDS church. Maybe my memory is bad. I I do a search on the fifth Gospel library app on my phone for Colossians 214 and the results are that if you search the abbreviation of call 214 CLL two 214 you get a total of four hits, which are all references to the LDS Bible dictionary that reference other passages in Colossians that have either the number two are the number 14 associated with them. When I search for Colossians 214 with Colossians spelled out zero results. Nothing in general conference addresses nothing and LDS Church magazines when I go on the LDS church website on my laptops about the mobile app and I search for Colossians 214" for direct hits. I only get three results. One is linked Colossians chapter 2 in the Bible you'd expect the passage to be there one as explicitly as is inexplicably linked Colossians chapter 1, I couldn't figure out why is linking to Colossians chapter 1, when you're looking for 214, the third is a link to chapter 45 of the current New Testament manual for obvious college students in that manual does discuss the passage in some detail, though it focuses on the forgiveness of the Colossian Saints past sins against the law of Moses and talks about how you know through the atonement. Our sins may be forgiven and so my memory serves me well that that that that passage had never been quoted, at least in my hearing in general conference because it has is not indexed in the search results on either the LDS church mobile app or their website but no seeing that it is covered in the New Testament manual for college students and knowing that that I have studied through the New Testament Institute manual when I was on my on my obvious mission. I got my my old manual out is called the life and teachings of Jesus and his apostles, and Matt manual, which is now outdated. Chapter 42 covers Colossians the skips over chapter 2 verse 14, in his commentary and the Scripture index in the back of the manual also confirms that it contains no references to Colossians 214 that's that's a lot for me to go through to demonstrate that this one passage of Scripture has not been an emphasis in official LDS teaching materials or sermons.
So why did I do it and extended because this passage of Scripture changed my view of what Christ done and how I partake of the Lord's supper and so LDS. My critique my my reference to my experience of taking the sacrament in the LDS church is self-flagellation, but my point is that there are key Bible passages that highlight what it means to be in Christ that are never spoken by LDS leaders from the pulpit, at least not by my memory or by a search of their electronic records.
Colossians 214 is one Romans 81. There is now is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus zero general conference addresses. According to the LDS church index of referenced Romans 81 and so if if latter-day St. would criticize me for coming to an overview of taking the sacrament is one of self-flagellation is one of never feeling worthy. Never feeling like I add up.
I would simply state that there's a reason the LDS leaders are not preaching the same gospel and are certainly not preaching the full gospel, that's great.
Really hit the nail on the head.
What you said about not feeling worthy when you are taking the sacrament I don't think I ever felt totally at peace taking the sacrament for 32 years that I was LDS their time start times I felt like I had momentary kind of peace like I remember when my last Sundays in my mission.
I really felt like and are suggesting are forever, but there is also always that creeping fear in my mind like what if I'm not worthy next week or the week after that are in a what if I do something that makes me lose my salvation.
Like everything online and use echo terminology but that's basically a final what if I never get it to the celestial kingdom. What if I'm not worthy enough even after all the hard work it into my mission you know if I still never get to the exaltation.
So yeah, I can really connect with that to her, wondering if a particular thing you did that week was grievous enough to talk to the Bishop about either something in on any always wondering if if what you done was you know if you can repent to that directly to God if he had to talk to Bishop about it in those eyes of the black woman that all that's great. I will commend them for having a discussion of Colossians 214 and there are Institute manual for college students. But it's completely absent from any other teaching materials that I I think that's a travesty that the peace that that Latter Day Saints could experience from understanding what Paul says in Colossians 214. You know is is missing is just not given to them will yet because yet the leaders of the church lose their control over you.
At that point because you don't need them.
You don't need their keys or their priesthood or any of that. The moment that you understand there's there's no more condemnation and and I wonder we, as former Latter Day Saints have kind of use a little bit in our conversations both recorded for the podcast and not about how different younger Latter Day Saints that view things and ends and I sometimes wonder if if it's because of the newer manuals that are being used for Institute actually give them a different view than that then they're getting, or former earlier generations Latter Day Saints have gotten from general conference making the did you just want to just have a look over these verses from the doctrine and covenants, right-click the ester sacrament prayers got them up right now. Okay I'm still read them. So this is Dr. Cohen it's 20 starting in verse 77 says the oh God this is the.
The sacrament prayers.
Oh God the eternal father we ask the in the name of thy son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify the spread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of my signed and witnessed sense of the old God the eternal father that they are willing to take upon them the name of a son and always remember him and keep his commandments which he is given them that they may always have his spirit to be with them.
A man so that's the red eye and what kinda sticks out to me there is that if we always remember him and keep his commandments, we may have a spirit to be with us, but it kinda has little willing in there before that. So it's a little unclear. 79 is the water but it's wind here. Oh God the eternal father we ask Lee in the name of thy son, Jesus Christ, to place pleasant thing to find this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it, in remembrance of the blood of thy son, which was shed for them that they may witness under the old God the eternal father that they do always remember him, that they may have a spirit to be with them. A man so just on first glance, I don't see a big contradiction, but Brad actually has more attributed to it than the than the wind does because the bread says were willing to keep his commandments. And it didn't say anything about that with the wine. Yeah, I saw this, contradiction it contradiction in the sense of my course you know what the water it says that that we witness that we remember Christ always that we can have our's that we have his spirit to be with us, so it seems that that's saying if you remember Christ always will have a spirit to be with it with us but when Itzhak met the bread it has more requirements you not to mean something like seem like there is different requirements. Having the spirit with us and any other there's I think there's a lot more talk today about that that phrase you mentioned Michael where it says that they are willing to take upon them the name of of of the sun, so they really focus on like a woman not saying you know we have to be perfect or that we have to have perfect obedience, keep the commandments just we have to be willing to take upon the name of the Senate and be willing to always remember them and be willing to keep his commandments, but I think that's more of a more recent focus on that passage because it always seemed to me that you actually had to be like really keeping like the major commandments, and you can you can fail in a few of the cortical minor aerial commandments you can say a bad word. You know maybe but but if you break in the word of wisdom. If you're breaking any of the baptismal questions, then you're not worthy of the sacrament.
So it seems to me that that's not just being willing to take upon us these things that to me at least in my experience, it seems like that willingness is only in the first part where it says that we are willing to take upon the same about of the sun and in the rest is what were actually doing that were remembering him and keeping his commandments. So I wanted I wanted to bring that up and see if that's how you felt it or did you feel's letter to St. that meant that all those things following were when we were willing or not, or will or whether we also had to perform them. So what would you guess yes so so IM just like you did Matthew, I didn't think that just being willing was good enough. I think maybe Latter Day Saints nowadays are are encountered going that route that route because there are more aware that they can't be perfect, you know, I thought that I could be perfect if I just tried hard enough and now I see how fruitless that is. But I think what I would have a problem with, you know, just being willing. You know I will willing to be to keep the commandments. But I'm not doing it. I think that breaks down at some point because if you really truly were 100% willing you would be keeping the commandments, but the fact is that we are also willing to keep the commandments enslaved. I do think it breaks down all yeah that's interesting.
I was kind and noted the difference in length between the Brandon and the water noise thought that that was, like an active mercy on the 16 and 17-year-old priests, because if you were the one who was doing the water prayer you had to sit through, you know that the sacrament him and then the other priest doing their bread citation and then you had to do your research and by that point, your palms were sweating and all of the moisture out of your throat was gone and you were choking on loan on your own back your throat try to get the words out. So I was I was kind of as an active mercy shorter. So you mean I'm assuming that's partly is like half serious, half joking. Are you all serious or it's all joking. Yeah, I was like, I think it okay to make a joke, but then he's not laughing you all laugh noted that such should also will set it so but did you see in terms of the length difference requirements are you now I kind of said that it seemed like I kind of clung to the mercy in the water. Prayer versus the stringent requirements in the bread prayer in Isaac may benefit the bread but at least I can cling onto the water. At least I remember Jesus is kinda weird though that the kind of make it or imply here that the flesh of Christ grants us more mercy than the blood of Christ side never noticed that before.
So thanks for bringing that up.
This isn't Matthew saying the opposite whether the bread one is the one that says that were willing to keep his commandments and the water.
One says that we always remember him and his spirit will be with us, so it seems like the water is actually and I know some switching between water and wine for anyone who is curious about that.
That's just because yes, the doctrine and covenants as wine but the actual prayers they water when they say them. They don't use wine in their sacraments, but yet it does seem like the little water has less requirements than the bread does okay because it sounded like he said the upset earlier because I was confusing because I idea I said the opposite. Yeah, that's my bad.
Sorry you're going to get so so Matthew if I'm understanding you correctly, you where it says that there willing to take upon them the name but based on you kinda clung to that right is like I'm willing. I'm not perfect, but I'm willing to take Christ on the part and end but but also more so on the water prayer. It says that they do always remember him. So, like maybe I'll send maybe I'll screw up during the week, but I'll there's never a point where I'm just like completely forget about Jesus you know so Michael Lisa's is always at least remember Jesus even I screw up, you know, maybe you have some hope of having spirit.
What was your experience is like the hand that play out practically as if it was it like I'm unconscious of messing up but I remember Jesus or was it I I'm I'm facing this temptation and I messed up while I'm remembering Jesus, almost, almost, that's almost like, contrary to what Paul says we should be doing yet almost sounds like a license to sin him more like I don't know it is more like I was holding. I was trying to think of something that to have hope in you know because when I read all man I don't keep the claimants all the time so I feel that requirement so as I quote the bread I'm shot on that part. But Lisa fire truck remotely so I'm willing affect the desire and at least if I remember Jesus. Maybe there's some hope that I can still have the spirit with me all the time.
You know it's kind like even if you sin, it's not. It's not like I'm using. I was trying to use as a license to sin, it was more like, you know, sometimes you feel you have temptation and you'll you'll you're still weak and you'll still give into it, now you would like. If you're praying for strength to overcome it or something like that. You sound as if you hungered for a deeper level of mercies and sometimes LDS teachings allow for yeah yeah I will sink into because even though the sacrament prayers make it seem like just remembering Christ will keep the spirit with you, or just being willing and I was definitely taught in Sunday school that if we send it would offend the spirit and he would leave your life. I think that was talk to me's quite a bit.
I mean, is that what you guys experienced as well. Yeah, I think.
I think it depends on the severity of the sin and it also depends on kind of your intent.
I guess you know none not just in the objective the objectivity of the sin itself, but also the intent behind the sin and a knife is a minor sin. You can, you know, praying asked forgiveness and I like this bareback or something serious yet.
Dr. Bishop in state prison or whatever and continue to pray and ask God for this bareback yeah I felt like if this if the sin was severe enough, then you have a spare would leave and you have to invite them back to repentance was my experience as well. My understanding as well. Michael, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost's the admonition in that and Matt wrote blessing or prayer right is received the Holy Ghost right it's it's almost like it's not like the Holy Ghost falling upon you… It's almost like it's your responsibility to allow the Holy Ghost in an and allow him to remain with you so that that was deftly my experience in the end they used the Bible passages says no, my spirit will not always strive with man to to kinda say like you you have this right to have the spirit with you because you had hands laid on you, but it's just the right it's not a guarantee, because you know because of this passage that they're pulling out of context to refer to the whole of the Holy Spirit is as is in the New Testament, and I know my spirit will always strive with man.
So therefore the implication was yeah but if you stand that the spirit will will receive from you, and you got me nursing passages.
We can look them up in the document. Covenants about people being given over the things of Satan, and that was also used you know to give that impression that that if you stand, you did not have the promise of the Holy Spirit within you. So in regards to when I talked about being renewing of the baptismal covenant something of I thought about is those those woes, we were always taught that if you wanted to receive the remission of sins, week by week by week you had to continue to have the sacrament. But do you do either of you know the passage explicitly says that in any of the LDS standard works for it says something along the lines of, you know that the you know that the sacrament is a renewal of your baptismal covenant because nothing comes to my mind that always just seem like an additional teaching of the LDS church and their leaders. That's kind of been repeated over and over again yeah I feel like that's just it.
Traditional teaching similarly came from the canon of you know some profit back in the day, but not from the actual standard works damask I would have thought. Are you aware of any passage that talks about that ball. I'm not. I was trying to search to see if I could find, but I don't know and I don't. I can't think of any passage that that was used to specifically give that impression.
I think it probably is cultural. It's interesting because because I think the first time I talked about my story that I've kind of gone through in and out of activity and so I think the first time I really remember learning about the doctrine that the teaching and then in the other district was when there is this kind of documentaries sort of video that they may run your 2000 with all the prophets and apostles of the other district at the time Kimberly was called something like that's only to do with their being apostles in each one of them stood in front of Cameron gave a different teaching did try to remember that weight was the temple video, not a temple video token that they gave to members is theirs and the hours earlier 2010 liketo to show we know there's apostles in Jesus's time and where the modern-day apostles 2000 years later think it's kind of what they're going for.
Yeah, I think I do kind of vaguely remember watching that and and one.
So one of them I might've been oaks, but I can't remember but one of them talked about that. They talk about how each week and we partake of the water and sacrament, then you know that's renewing our baptismal covenant receive remission of sins number learning that like oh well, I never knew that you know those Kimberly early on coming back to the church and really studying LDS doctrine slots wherever it is to drive me nuts so special witnesses or something like that. Yeah special witnesses of Christ. I think probably yeah… I'm really familiar.
I feel like with the at least some of the mic. I think I remember oh goodness, what is his name like Faust was in it. Yeah Faust is in any said, I wonder how many drops of blood was shed for me yes yeah special witnesses of Christ. I just googled it and that's what it is you.
I really like that one, and was the really was a really awesome dude and there is one my favorite Richard G. Scott oh yeah I like Richard G.
Scott lot back in the day. He seemed like, you know, grandpa figure, not just a really chill guy like you and I think it the judgmental feelings from him that I got from like who is who is the dude that was like in the 12 apostles Packer is like Packer was secretly judging me like you to know I was by news judging will he always gave the fire and brimstone talks in the priesthood session zones of conference on site got the most punishment from him because a misstep in here to see the two CV what that means RA. Sorry about the diversion. So yes, remember learning that offers is why I brought that up anything so I talk about that that would be good to discuss that prayer because that's so the sacrament so pivotal in LDS theology last thought the it's interesting though that you know the sacrament prayers do save you know just remembering Christ and be willing to keep his commandments will keep the Holy Ghost with us, and yet it is taught, you know, in the other LDS teachings that sin does drive the Holy Ghost away so that doesn't seem like a pretty big contradiction. At that point kinda negates the ability of the sacrament to really do anything right and so now we would see we would see the Holy Spirit not being coming and going costly based on stand but at conversion when were justified and adopted as sons of God and rerouting on.
We received regeneration Holy Spirit despair comes in any indwells a believer and he stays with the believer and he doesn't come and go so when we take the word supper. It's not so that we can renew our baptismal covenant per say it's primary as you said before, to remember Christ into and I and a as a referral analyzer for Baptist. I do believe that in the sacrament you do have communion not only with Christ but you with the body but also with Christ. Spiritually you are communing with his person.
So he's their spiritual presence in the water and the wine and the bread and the spiritual communion since since you can't separate the spirit from the body of Christ in the person of Christ do hypostatic union going way too over the heads of our audience. But basically Christ he is. He has the God nature.
The man nature and the managers. His physical body sewn or partaking of the supper is spirit, and his divinity is everywhere.
It's omnipresent it's it's everywhere so in the spirit in the suburban or partaking on it were sacramentally united to Christ and because of that worry united to the person of Christ, including his body and blood, but we don't believe that his body but are locally that there locally present in the sacraments is an error in the Lord's supper so not physically eating Christ were eating it and remembers of him and there's a spiritual sacramental union and because of that were united to Christ spirit in his body in heaven saw is when the point that accident. I don't think I really say that earlier that's that's consistent with my view as well. Curious though, in either of the churches that you both attend either their route prayers related to the sacrament of the Lord's supper is there are in the LDS church and not in my really think so. I think they do quote one of the Gospels when he institutes that the bread and wine think they will usually give a short little sermon saying who is eligible to print to take of it, and then he says, and then he'll call part of the gospel, but it's I don't think it's set in stone.
Every single time you know route prayers in the church I attend. Sometimes there sometimes the worship leader will will pray before communion.
Sometimes an elder will come up and give communion message from from Scripture, sometimes it will just be reading from Scripture prior to community and past but no. No repairs. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that because maybe in the more high church environments like Anglicans or Lutherans they might have a specific set of prayers. I don't know exactly is necessarily anything wrong with that. This is not how we do it when instituting the sacrament or ordinance of the Lord's supper at the Passover table the night of his betrayal. The Lord said the following in the gospel according to Luke chapter 22 verses 17 through 21 quote and he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he said, take this and divide it among yourselves, for I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes and he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, this is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me and likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." So what is Christ saying here when he says this is my body and this is the cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood all the way to go first so I'm having a really tough time with this question.
Be honest because I feel like kind of covered this a lot not really have any extra yeah I think I struggle with this one because the so the conversation around it from from a historical standpoint really kinda stems from the Reformation and a reaction to the doctrine of transubstantiation within the Roman Catholic Church which postdates the Bible and doesn't have any support from the Bible asked except perhaps this passage right which which some reformers then took and had to react to because of because of the Roman Catholic view of transubstantiation, but I don't think that I don't think that that was a controversy in the early church was a critique that was made of the early church right by those who would throw the charge of cannibalism upon Christians because because they know were taking the sacrament Lord's supper, but I don't know that whether or not this passage actually means that the bread is is Christ body and the cup is Christ's blood.
I don't know that I was a controversy that really raged prior to the Reformation.
So for me, someone, someone who goes directly to the Bible. All of that post apostate apostolic era stuff, especially when needed out of the Reformation.
It's not really interesting to me is that I don't see that in this passage, I think a lot of times we in and in the reformers when they were looking through Scripture. They're trying to go back to understand Scripture from the source, and that Scripture's highest authority they still tried to consult earlier church fathers because they were. They didn't want to go the route of coming up with something totally crazy off-the-wall that no one ever thought of before.
Because he thought that would be a bad idea because these, they still had a high view of the church in terms of God guiding the church you know throughout the ages. And so if they can open something was totally never taught before. That's probably not a good thing. So there are several quotes from early church fathers, though that still that that seemed to indicate that not everybody there was this teaching of real presence, but it's not the same as transubstantiation in the Roman Catholic Church and so there are a lot of quotes from early church fathers that do seem to indicate that it's more symbolic and less literal transformation of the essence of the bread and wine to body and blood of Jesus. So maybe I'll just quote a couple here. Clement of Alexandria, he said, so this is from his the instructor. I'm guessing this is book 1, page 6 or chapter 6.
So he says here quote elsewhere, the Lord in the gospel according to John brought this out by symbols when he said EE my flesh and drink my blood describing distinctly by metaphor, the drinkable properties of faith and the promise by means of which the church like a human being consisting of many members is refreshed and grows is welded together and compacted of both of faith, which is the body and of hope, which is the soul is also the Lord of flesh and blood for. In reality the blood of faith is hope in which faith is held as bio vital principle."
Augustine his really popular diligence all just quote one from him also.
So this is from Augustine on Christian doctrine. So, quote if the sentence is one of command, either for bidding a crime or vice or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence. It is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice or two for bid an act of prudence or benevolence.
It is figurative, except to eat the flesh of the Son of Man, since Christ and drink his blood, you have no life in you. And so this is going. Scripture seems to enjoin a crime or advice. It is therefore, a figure enjoying that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that his flesh was wounded and crucified for us."
So it it seems indicate that there are some passages where they focus a lot on the symbology. However, you could also take a quotes to say that they really focus on the fact that that you know that we are communing though say such thing as we eat Christ's body and we drink his blood, but we tend to think back on those phrases as literal. You know that all they must've thought it literally, but I think like you said Paul in the early church. I think they clearly understood their were not literally eating Jesus body blood, but that they were figurative Jesus body and blood. And it's kind of become as over time. Where was more in force.
This idea of transubstantiation is differently after the first millennium, but that really started to come in to play with, especially with Aquinas.
The early church definitely reacted to the criticism of cannibalism and defended themselves against that sort that that to me makes it for me.
Hard to believe that they held the view, anything likes transubstantiation, and I know I know there's a whole argument between the swingman Luther on this writing and the pounding of the fittest and this is my body, and another is that the whole argument, church history, but again just going back to the to the biblical texts that you quoted here. I don't think that's fair and and I wish I had got this up. Specifically, the quote but there's one from McNair is talking about this and if you're a member of the Lord's supper is in the context of the Passover having the Passover supper together. And a lot of times they would they would have different parts of the supper and they would represent certain things, like I think they have a lamina in the eat the lamb and that represents kind of like man I wish I'd put this out, but basic basically their different elements of the Lord's supper that are symbolic and they say this represent this this represents that you know I think I think the lamb actually represents the blood that was on the doors that that protected them from from God's judgment and so so each, so they would point to and say this is this, but of course it symbolic so then in that same kind of context pointing to the bread and saying this is my body and pointing to the one thing this is my blood. They would've understood that he's making a connection there. That is not saying this is literally transformed. It's my body. Blood just as when you're eating the unleavened bread, and you're eating the meat yelled they understood that these were symbols pointing to what happened at the pop the original Passover. So yeah, like you said, I think, as I think we just read it in the wrong context.
In our modern way of the Western kind of way of thinking and excluded from the context of the early of the early Church of the apostles that that we get into this controversy of whether Jesus is literally there in the bread and white wine or weather is not literally there so sorry I think I keep going around and around in circles around the same thing but we keep saying over and over again, but I figured this was was important to tackle because you know that letters things are very much symbolic you know he's not there at all, but I think he's there in spirit.
There's a spirit another spiritual presence the spiritual coming with Christ, not a physical one. And that's the way that the Calvin felt he he he was kind of trying to unite Zwingli and it is mainly inside and Lutheran side try to say hey you know there is a union. Here is a communion here, but it's not local physical presence is a spiritual presence and I agree with me that I don't mean to sound dismissive. This is my body argument just just doesn't land with me and I know I know it's a really super important to some people but it just never landed with me but I don't go all the way to anymore to this notice. Nothing. There's there's no communion but a symbolist. It's not just a remembrance.
There is there is there is a real communion with the Lord and in the supper and I and I brought this up to because I have friends that you know that I've talked to and I am unable to joke with me friends with on Facebook, but they flat out say that because I don't have either a Lutheran, Anglican Catholic orthodoxy of the Lord supper that my sacraments are not valid. So I don't know if that means I think that I'm not saved.
Probably not, but they but they would say that my view of the sacraments means at their invalid so that it is that important to some people that you have a local physical presence in the supper that if you don't believe that it's invalid you don't mean so to some traditions.
It is very very important now and say all Lutherans, Anglicans, etc. would say that, but these me on some of my friends have said that it's interesting so we just to make sure I get this straight is and ask you this earlier Matthew, but the difference between Lutheran's amendment reformed theology on this point is that something Lutherans would say that there is a localized real presence of the Savior, but reformed theology just says that it's spiritual presence.
Is that what it is right yeah so Lutherans actually do believe that there is a of physical local locality of Christ's physical body and blood in the supper.
Hello guys it's different because they don't believe like Catholics do so. Catholics believe entrance transmitting, changing, or are evolving, whatever substantiation being substance like what is made up, so they believe that the body's of the bread. Actually the entire substance or essence of the bread is removed and replaced with Christ's body and the wine.
The substance is completely removed and replaced with with his blood and so why does it still taste like Mike bread and wine is because they make the distinction between substance and accidents. Accidents being the outward appearance, the taste of the smell.
So the accident stay there so it still smells and tastes and looks like bread and wine, but the substance of it is completely removed and replaced with Christ's body and blood. That's the Roman Catholic view in the Lutherans.
They do not believe that that so they don't believe in transubstantiation, but they do believe the Christ physical body and blood are added to in around and through the elements of the bread and wine so date they will really go much further than that say it's more of a mysterious sacramental kind of union of Christ's body and blood in the sack and the board supper that only know how it works and you know sonic you can pick out you know molecules of Christ's body, but it's it's in and through the wine and the bread but they do believe that they are literally taking Christ's body and blood. So one of the trigger point on the Roman Catholic view is that the actual transubstantiation. Unless I'm wrong takes place at the blessing of the elements by the priest right so prior to that point.
They're just bread and wine.
And then there's this transformation that is set to take place once the priest blesses the elements.
So with the Roman Catholic view your back to a similar thing like we were talking about baptism, but only with regard to the worlds with regard to the Lord's supper right were suddenly your back to there's only the special authority that can make this real correct is just Lutheran. I don't think Lutheranism has the same view with regards to the authority though right of the minister in terms of changing the elements. I think they do, actually, because they do use these.
I think they do still participate in the holy orders may not call it that.
But think of the lateral quick to find 1/4 person, an ex-Mormon Lutheran team this stuff.
I know I know that Lutherans are very heavily they heavily believe in apostolic succession.
Let's see. So okay is just a Wikipedia page, so who knows how authoritative it is that although the Lutheran confessions do not deny the holy orders may be considered sacramental. Okay, no, it's so they don't believe it to be a sacrament the same way that Roman Catholics do, but they do believe in the bishop, priest, deacon, distinction, so II do think they they do believe in, passing on of authority in the church because you know that the Lutheran Church Lutherans and Anglicans, especially they do believe that they still have apostolic succession even though they broke off from the church economy because ice they saw themselves as truly reforming the church and not restoring or breaking off or forming a new church. They felt that they were continuing on from what came before, so maybe I'm wrong about the Lutherans. I'm pretty sure about the Anglicans that they really believe in this succession of authority in the church. Yeah, this is my question was, more specifically about like they have the same views as Roman Catholics with regard to when when there's a change to the elements, and that it is tied to the authority of the minister or if it's orifice like you were saying is more mysterious thing that takes place regardless of the minister. Yeah, I'm not quite sure about that. I've started to tend to dive into Lutheran theology.
But there's a lot there that I'm trying to wade through so I don't know about that after got up there dancing on talk about this question, or move on me could talk all day about in all this controversy of local physical presence are, but I did want to also mention to you.
This just came to mind. So date so I don't think that's Lutherans believe on the I'm not actually certain. I don't think that they believe like Catholics do that your they are actually digesting or chewing on Christ and I think it's more, I still think it's somewhat sacramental in its nature. Deuteronomy to kind of avoid that the accusations of cannibalism or eating little flesh. So I think Lutherans do believe it's still sort of mystical, sacramental union, even though they do believe that the physical body and blood of Jesus is actually in the summer it's it's so big, getting a lot of times Lutherans will just kind of tell you that it's a mystery, and they just believe the Scriptures and they don't really go further than that. Maybe just a tangent but I think it's interesting to talk about when we were LDS right.
The fever had the experiences as a LBS missionary having to talk about talk to an investigator who was coming to church about a only baptized members take the sacrament dear Heather, the conversation yeah I differently had that conversation… Awkward because if they looked around they would've seen you parents letting the little kids take the sacrament all the time to warrant baptized right right and so the idea behind that right was like if you're not baptized in renewing the baptismal covenant under your partaking unworthily, was that your understanding as well.
I didn't think it was taking unworthily, I just I didn't do anything, so there was no point in taking the sacrament. If you had been baptized and quickly say our mission president. We were we asked my question specifically and he said you know don't actively discourage them from taking a sacrament because the out it was basically the same thing that that Michael just said, it's not gonna really do anything for them in terms of, you know, they have made the baptismal covenant so they can renew it, but he felt was kind of more like it. It makes them feel part of the congregation, thanks so it wasn't against there was nothing wrong with them taking it especially if they don't really understand what's going on, you know, it's more just like a communing with the the Fellowship of you know, the fellow saints, I guess so yeah we are told not to actually discourage them from doing it interesting. I'm curious then like about the churches that you attend. Is there any kind of similar approach to people who aren't baptized members of the congregation or were members of the congregation on record. No, I don't see anything like that just you know you have heard him say is that you need to have accepted Christ. I haven't seen anything so specific as what you're talking about nothing for us are elders asked that everyone examine themselves that they find themselves to be a true believer in Christ out of the place of trust in Christ repented, but that they also be a member of a church in good standing, so that only make strict requirements in terms of what kind of church they just say out a faithful Bible preaching church and you should be a member of the church in good standing.
So by that requirement.
Even though we disagree with our presbyterian brothers are underpaid about this brothers on terms of baptism and if they were to become a member of our church. They would have to be baptized.
You know, following profession of faith, select their infant baptism wouldn't count on when The sensor becoming a member, but because they're a member of a Christian church in good standing.
They can still commune with us at the Lord's table.
If they visit or something like that I can resolve that issue of whether they can yeah is similar to what I was one of the things it was interesting to me to come to study to resign as I came out of the LDS church and started attending church that was this part of the American restoration movement because that whole question of open or close communion was was a big one of the big reasons why Alexander Campbell and his father moved away from Presbyterianism and then later even here in America away from the from one of the Baptist associations because it was they were in Scotland it was it was over close communion and people being refused for communion who they knew personally to be committed believers because they didn't hold certain doctrines of men here in America it was it was over disagreements over over doctrines as well, where they broke with the Reading Baptist Association. So this is interesting that that whole conversation to me about your open or close communion, but you are church or something similar in a solemn settlement.
Another may send it doesn't happen every week but another may stand up and and make a statement you know or maybe up on the up on the screens that you know communion is this for committed believers in Christ similar admonitions to examine yourself and I can think so interesting. I think that's probably the best way to do it and I know I understand why close communion exists. And I think it's not only to protect the sanctity of what's going on at the Lord's table because it is. It is important thing that's happening but it's also to protect the person so I can understand why there are other churches that have close communion, but I think it's best to just explain.
You know you know that you should examine yourself and let the people be held responsible for their own actions if they should be taking and they do that's on them.
No, rather than trying to keep it closed and make sure you know you because there are a lot of churches that do to have close communion. Maybe not so much anymore but I know historically. There were a lot of them.
I know I've read about like in church history, and I don't I don't know. I don't remember exactly know how how close it goes back to the apostolic era that I mean I know in the early and early church.
There was no when when they reached the point in the service where they would be ready to take the Lord's supper, then there was a call for quote unquote the doors and people who were who were not baptized people who were what they call him the proselytes are proselytes proselytes is one we had an catechumen's catechumens that people who are catechumens, investigators quote unquote would would be asked to to leave prior to the Lord's supper in the door, then the doors will be closed.
I was not I was wonder what that was about. You know, was it was it because they wouldn't be worthy or was it because you know people who were in that process is not not yet having committed themselves to being a believer in Christ were they were they trying to avoid people misunderstanding what they were doing so I wonder what the what the motivation was behind that so it's one of those things that I think plays into the whole the later discussions of open or close communion and then people get into trying to justify close communion from from like the apostles in the upper room sounds just interesting interesting rabbit hole of church history can kinda go down that's really fast. Fascinating that I want to see venison and fascinating that I really want to get to the church history of audio. The development over time is historical theology that the development of the sacraments.
Yeah, I think they would be enthralling as well. That's a get onto yeah so a lot of those points. I think I was hoping to get into. When we got into first 2011 so yeah we might we might have to talk as much when get to that point just is just a quick recommend book or diminution based on what you both just express interest in assuming that you were joking, but there's a scholar named Jaroslav Pelikan I think is passed now but she was leaving was Lutheran and converted to Eastern orthodoxy throughout his his scholarly career. But he wrote a series of books on the development of Christian doctrine verse five books shelf verse five and there there really fascinating can covers like the early church and the new covers like the things that led up to the split between East and West. And then there's going to the Reformation and one of him is just a fascinating series of books that are very, very dense and very very well documented in terms of what he presents. So it's really interesting that he has an interesting way of footnoting them. That's different than anything else of others ever seen work he does in the side margins aligned with where he's quoting something or alluding to something and so you don't have to flip back and forth to find endnotes to see what he's talking about is just right there you can see all here is quoting from Justin Martyr here is quoting from Tertullian or here is quoting from you know New Testament passage so it's it's really well organized, but it's called the Christian to do tradition and history of the development of doctrine, by Jaroslav Pelikan and there's five volumes. So it's one of the things that I've studied through pretty early on after my transition out.
I found really fascinating.
Fasting is okay yeah actually I have. I think the first three so the first one is early church. Second one is I think it's Eastern church and the third one is medieval doctrine as a backup. Getting out of those three I want to get the one leading up to the Reformation for the Reformation in the fifth.
This is more modern Reformation till now, Montello loose to finish writing this really good set of books for understanding the development of doctrine throughout history I've ever first a little bit about the sacraments there and also about the development of devotion to Mary. He talks a lot about that.
Yeah yeah I agree I like. I really like the way he formats it references everything in the in the side margin. Another little and I would also recommend is the book that I that I thought was the name of his book exactly different buckets called early Christian doctrine, I believe, by Jandy Kelly and that's that's kind of a standard text you that's really recommended amounts historians.
I don't remember where. Where he comes from. I think he was something like Lutheran or Anglican, but he does a really good good job of documenting the different doctrines of the early church, and of course if you want to get like really in-depth and shook her church history. Schaefer is a really solid solid resource for listeners to don't want to dive into like five volumes of scholarly tomes. Another resource that I use a lot when I was first coming of the LDS church to understand these things was a series of lectures that were given by a guy named Maxie Birch have to look at exactly what his condenser.
He was a professor at a Christian college, but she did a whole series of lectures on on church history from the early church era all the way up through the Reformation radical Reformation and and that whole series of lectures I just devoured them listening to them while I'm good be mowing the lawn and I know they're still available out there. I don't know if they're still available on iTunes. You is that even exist anymore. That's where I listens to them. But I know you can find them on his website thinks I think it's Maxie Birch.net but he does a really great series of really engaging lectures on church history. So if you'd rather listen to something that's work that's one place to go. Yeah for you and I keep plugging historical stuff all the plug to more.
I love licking your series on church history, what's his name. He's a really good teacher of just Teague it's it's like it's like the superfast Highview explanation Robert W.
Radford, Robert Godfrey.
He has several sections to where it breaks out by centuries and it's like you know the first one is like you know like 10 different sections and he's covering 500 years so you that's a really high level you have to skip a lot of stuff, but it's really good to just get up Birdseye view of history and another another resource. It's good that I've read a little bit myself I'm gone through it detail, but I've referenced it several times and is really easy to pick up on really easy to read.
It's Nick Needham's four volume set 2000 years of Christ's power and so he kind of divided by arrow to I think in the first error is like the first 400 years or five years and then leading all the way up to the Reformation in the modern church so it's it's very readable. Not a lot of really high-level words.
He just breaks it down for just the Lehman to understand church history. So I think in terms of if you wanted to read a list I think that's also on audiotape. You could also said that anyways yeah there's lots of great resources for learning, church history, we thank you for tuning into this episode of the outer brightness podcast. We'd love to hear from you. Please visit the other brightness podcast page on Facebook. Feel free to send us a message there with comments or questions by clicking send a message at the top of the page. We would appreciate it if you give the page alike. We also have an outer brightness group on Facebook where you can join and interact with us and others. As we discussed the podcast past episodes and suggestions for future episodes, etc. you can also send us an email at outer firstname.lastname@example.org Hope to hear from you soon.
You can subscribe to the outer brightness podcast on Apple podcasts cast box Google podcasts pocket cast pod be specified in stitcher. Also you can check out our new YouTube channel and if you like it. Be sure to lay hands on the unsubscribe button and confirm it if you like what you hear.
Please give us a rating and review wherever you listen and help spread the word. You can also connect with Michael.
The next moment apologist from water to wine.work blogs and sometimes pond method you as well. Music for the other brightness podcast is graciously provided by the talented Breanna Flournoy and by Adams Road. Learn more about Adams Road.
By visiting their ministry email@example.com. Stay bright and I is in my