The Truth Network Radio
April 29, 2021 10:05 am

Taking It To The STREETS With Vocab Malone

Outer Brightness /

00:00 / 00:00
On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 168 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


April 29, 2021 10:05 am

Vocab Malone, a Reformed Christian and apologist, discusses his debate with a young Latter-day Saint apologist on the topic of the Athanasian Creed. He explains why he believes the Athanasian Creed is a crucial aspect of Christian theology and how it relates to the nature of God. Malone also addresses the concept of eternal law and how it is understood in Mormonism, highlighting the contradictions and problems within the Mormon metaphysic.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Uh You're entering. Outer brightness How can you look upon this ender with such love? Grace overflows my cove. All of my soul and my heart have been revived in you. I'm saddest one.

So, welcome everyone to the Outer Brightness Podcast. My name is Matthew. And my co-hosts Paul, Michael, and I, we started this podcast. With the goal of sharing our faith journeys from being active, faithful Latter-day Saints. to joining biblical Christianity.

We were all born and raised as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormon or LDS Church. we each found ourselves questioning what we were taught as Latter day Saints, and were led to becoming post Latter day Saints, to resigning from the Church. And by God's grace we found faith in Christ outside the LDS Church as evangelical or Protestant Christians. We have a love for our LDS friends and family, and we would like to share our faith journey with them. And our goal is to also show those who may be questioning or re-examining their faith in the LDS Church that life outside the LDS Church, albeit scary at first, can be filled with joy, excitement, and freedom in Christ.

It is ultimately through and in Christ alone that we have found our greatest hope and new life through spiritual rebirth. Hence the name of our podcast, Outer Brightness. And today we are very blessed to have a special guest with us, Vocab Malone, who's with us on the podcast.

So I'll give a short introduction of him and his work, and then we'll dive into some questions regarding a recent debate that he had with a young Latter-day Saint apologist on the topic of the Athanasian Creed.

So, Vocab Malone, also known as the Streapologist, he is a Reformed Christian with a heart for evangelism and experience in defending the Christian faith. He has also collaborated with other apologists such as Jeff Durbin, Dr. James White, Dr. David Wood, and Sam Shimoon, and has interacted with individuals from various groups such as Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter-day Saints, atheists, and black Hebrew Israelites. He has gained notoriety as a witness for Christ on the streets and through his online presence on his YouTube channel by teaching the Word of God, addressing criticisms of the Christian faith, and performing as a rap artist.

Locab has participated in several moderated debates, and there's many of them. I couldn't find all of them, but I'll just mention a few with several opponents, such as Alazar, I think you pronounce it, from the Saqqari camp of the Black Hebrew Israelite movement. I watched a bit of that, that was interesting, on the topic of salvation. Omar Kahl and Sean Esplin on the topic of Christianity versus atheism, where he teamed up with Pastor Jeff Durbin. And most recently, as far as I know, unless you had one since then, with Latter-day Saint Apologist Quaku El on the topic of whether the Athanasian Creed is true, with vocab being in the affirmative.

I have had one since then. Oh, man. You're an active guy.

So, who did you debate since then? I debated a Hebrew Israelite on this question. Is the multinational church the fulfillment of national Israel? I took the affirmative. Huh.

I'll have to check that out. Where can I find that? Debate Talk for You. It's a Hebrew Isolite debate platform.

Okay, great. I'll have to look that up. And I'll have one tomorrow night.

Well, it's not going to be tomorrow night once you air this, but I have one Saturday, October 17th. You're like Dr. White. You just got stuff lined up for months.

So, yeah, I really appreciate it again for you coming on.

So, you've also written a book about Black Hebrew Israelites called Barack Obama versus Black Hebrew Israelites. That's kind of on my mental list of things I need to read down the road. As far as I know, have you written any other books than that? I contributed to a book with Anthony Rogers and some other brothers called Our Goddess Triune. big yellow and white book and I did a chapter on Um Answering the question of is the is the Trinity A European concept or invention.

Because you get a lot of people saying that they were dealing with different topics, a little more biblical theology. Mine was a little bit different, but I contributed a chapter to that book.

Well that's great.

So I just want to mention that as a host of a YouTube channel with nearly over a thousand videos, well, nearly a thousand videos, over 2 million views, 25,000 subscribers, you've reached quite a large audience with his witnessing and apologetics work.

So, we here at the Out of Brightness Podcast, we're incredibly grateful to have OCAP here with us and to. Take your time out of your day to come with us.

So, welcome to the Out of Brightness Podcast. Thank you very much. And sorry about the time difference confusion. I grew up in Utah, so I was like, oh, he's in mountain time, you know.

So, you know, it's two hours behind. And then I realized, man. Arizona's always got to go and mess everything up. That's because we don't change our clocks.

So. Yep. Yeah, if this were six months from now, it would have been fine, right? Because then the clocks would have been the same as Utah's, I guess. I think we changed it in.

Well, I think you guys changed it in, I think in November. Starting in November, yeah, yeah, we're going to be uh. On will be essentially on mountain time. Right. Yeah, yeah.

So I was just a few weeks off, man. Oh, well. But yeah, thank you for your patience. I appreciate it.

So, welcome.

So, apart from what I mentioned in kind of the introduction, would you like to tell us more about yourself? Anything you'd like to share? Maybe your background, where you're from, how you came to know and believe in Christ, et cetera. Anything you'd like to share? Well, I'm originally from Columbus, Ohio.

I've been in Phoenix, Arizona for a while. And Uh uh I was raised in a really strong Christian environment with some great examples. And then when I was in high school, you know, it's like almost similar to what some Mormons say, you know, where they had to make the testimony their own, but testimony was different for me. And so that's really when I first started getting into apologetics, was sort of late high school, sort of as a way to. See if I was going to take this thing seriously to make sure it was true.

And so that was fantastic. And apologetic materials helped me in that journey, as well as specifically the book of Ecclesiastes.

So those are major components to my. It's a really my testimony to where I'm like, okay, to live is Christ and to die is gain. And I've been trying to do that ever since. And here we are in 2020. Oh, that's great.

So, you like you said, you kind of wanted to make sure that Christ is really who you wanted to commit to, and if this is really. I think I can see in you what what we're trying to show is that Christ is not something that you just it's not just the title you take on, it's really dedicating your whole life, your energy, put putting yourself into what we proclaim.

Sounds like you, that's what you really were considering, right? As a realized more and more to do it right was an all or nothing proposition. But if you're going to go all. then you want it to be truth, otherwise you're Spinning your wheels, you know, or wasting your time or living in La La Land. And so, uh, Apologetics and again, Ecclesiastes, the really most important things in those steps in my journey.

And it sounds like kind of what you've seen in your life, or how God, what God has called you to, is apologetic specifically. Diving into this topic. You go by the name the street apologist.

So, just curious: how did you get that name? Is that something you gave yourself or something someone gave it to you?

Well, it's.

So it ends up being that, but it's kind of like the way the Bible answer man is supposed to be. It's the Bible Answer Man show. And then Hank HannaGraffer before him, Walter Martin, hosted it. Mm. And so I host the street apologist.

But I'm not saying I'm the street apologist. I think I'm a street apologist. And so the idea is holsting it for street apologists. And the way I got those names is basically at different times when I had chances to have different programs or platforms, like usually on traditional radio in the past. I would sit around with all these names, and I would end up with more names that I liked than I could utilize the time.

And Street Apologies was one I always wanted to use, but until YouTube didn't necessarily have the chance, it was just sitting there in my back pocket. And then when it came to what to call the YouTube show, I was like, finally, Street Apologists Live. And so I felt like that encapsulated what we're trying to do. Yeah. Yeah, that's great.

I I also remember I was rewatching some programs you did on I think I first saw you when you were on James White's program. I think you were talking about Black Hebrews or your light sever before or after he was going to debate A black Hebrew Israelite. And so that's kind of when I first was introduced to you. That was during my faith transition. And you also mentioned something how you were also on something called Backpack Radio.

Is that something that's yeah, and so that was the first name of the show, and the other names I never got to use. The idea with Backpack Radio was sort of a. hip-hop vibe backpack kind of representing not You know, hiking in mountains, but representing kind of the kid going college class, skating around, spray painting his back pocket, he's on the subway train, he's on the backpack. It's like a city of metro, it's a symbol of metro life to me. And so, the idea of backpack radio was like apologetics for that kind of city environment and vibe or whatever.

And that's where the name came from. And that went through multiple iterations. The first version, a guy I knew was an intern at a radio station, he got free airtime and said, Hey, what do you want to do? I said, I've already got an idea because I've been thinking about it for a long time. And so, we tried it.

And then, once he wasn't an intern anymore, no more show. And then I was part of another thing where. Funding for radio kind of dropped into my lap and it went straight to the radio station. But for about two, three, four years, I forget the exact amount of time, but again, was on actual radio. It was sort of backpack radio 2.0 with a different staff, but there I still was.

And then that ended. And then when it came on YouTube, at first, I called it backpack radio there as well. And it was funny because at that time there was an association with the backpack, which you see over that shoulder, which Was not originally why they call it a backpack, but that backpack actually is a character in Islamicize me, which is a long story. It's an animated talking backpack who guides us along the way to how to be Muslims because it has sources inside you pull out.

So then it was like, well, that's weird, backpack radio.

So it just kind of fit. But eventually, backpack radio wasn't as descriptive as it needed to be, as well as some other things, blah, blah, blah. And so Street Apologist Live became the name for it. I actually had the tune for the magic backpack as my ringtone photo. One of those.

Oh, yeah. But then people started getting annoyed by it, so I kind of turned that off. Yeah, yeah.

It's like, hold on, let me. What's it say exactly? I'm trying to remember all the what he says, but I know it's like this: oh, but. Backpack, magic backpack. Like that.

Yeah, when you hear that, you know, five or six times a day, people are like, all right, already, I've heard enough. Yeah, so yeah. I got stacks of stacks to keep you on track. Yeah. Yeah.

Man, we need a mixer board like that. We need to up our production value, guys. Yeah, but if we do, you're not allowed to touch it, Matthew. I think somebody else needs to be in charge of it. Yeah.

Sounds good. Yeah, but uh so yeah, so we start talking on um On Aaron Shafalov's live stream, we just started talking about how we had an interview with Jackson Washburn previously.

So that's a really if you haven't seen that yet, I would really when you haven't find the time, I'd recommend you watch that just because we had a really good interaction with him. And I think that's how we can start to have Interactions as Christians and Latter-day Saints. I think the debate format is a great format, also. And then we're trying to make a space. On YouTube and in the podcast realm to where we can kind of have in-depth conversations and not make it too aggressive because you know sometimes emotions get heated, they get high and then people get defensive and then we never get anywhere.

So that's kind of what we're what we're trying to do.

So that's that's what kind of also what we wanted to do is to talk about your debate with Kwaku because I think a lot of times people are turned off by the debate format. They see, they, you know, a lot of people, when they watch the presidential debate, for example, they think about how people were aggressive or how they didn't like this or that. Right. They focus on stuff like that, like the personality of the person rather than focusing on the arguments that are being. discussed.

So I thought maybe it would be good to talk with you about the actual issues to kind of flesh them out. And maybe if you didn't have a chance to say what you wanted to say during the debate, then you could expand that further.

So I hope that's good with you.

So if that's all right with you, we can switch to questions now specifically about the debate and the topics related to the debate. I'm sure give it a shot. Yeah, so Vocab, I got a question for you. And actually, really excited to talk to you tonight. You know, we got a lot of stuff in common.

We both have apologists in our name. We're both rappers. And Yeah. I hope to have a beard like yours. one of these days.

So that is one of my big life goals.

Well just slowly transition from here to there. Yeah, well, I mean, it's too late. There's nothing up there to transition.

So But I'm just going to ask you if you had any comments about the debate in general. How did you prepare for it? How well do you think it went?

Well, you know, I ordered a bunch of new books. I listen to tons of audio. And I had a lot of conversations with my smart friends.

So I was calling Aaron Shafawalaf all the time, just asking him all kinds of crazy questions. And Aaron pretty much has an answer for everything and knows a paper about everything. And it's fascinating. Uh Like He's There's apologists who deal with Mormonism, but I don't know how many apologists like under, I feel like he understands Mormons.

sort of the cultural elements with the theology. better than so many people. It's fascinating to talk to about it. I also got some philosophy buddies, you know, that I called up because I saw Quake who sometimes I felt would try to sort of snow people with sort of. Um you know, uh BYU light philosophy uh objections.

And uh I didn't I didn't want that to happen. And so I went kind of above and beyond in some of those types of issues. Got a really smart friend at a Moody Sunjay Merchant. Talked to some good stuff about him. I even had an atheist friend who's going for a PhD, who has interesting views of matter and material.

That I called up a buddy who used to be a Christian, he's an atheist, you know, try to stay in contact. I said, Hey, and so we had interesting discussions as well.

So, that was a big part. And I found sort of the Mormon academic world. And that was really just fascinating. You know, stuff isn't trivial, meaning I'm not. doing it just because it's interesting like a hobby however I'm also super genuinely curious and actually interested and fascinated.

So, you know, I was reading this book that was on. Published by Oxford. You know, and I'm like, whoa. And I was asking Aaron, like, have you ever read this book? You guys probably have heard of the author.

Terrell Givens. And the book though is called Wrestling the Angel. the foundations of Mormon thought, cosmos, God, and humanity. Huge book, massive book, published again, like I said, by Oxford. Came out in 2015, so somewhat new.

He's a Mormon academic. And what he does, it's almost like one of these books. If you've ever read a book that's like the history of Christian thought. It's almost like that for Mormonism.

Now, Um You kind of have to have some discernment in reading it, but he's an academic, so he's honest and clear enough that you can kind of see through little parts of spin. And it was just An amazing book, and I found some other stuff like that that was just.

So fascinating to kind of have this other background to kind of dip. Further into this Mormon intelligentsia class that exists, as well as published works. In fact, I think that book's part of a trilogy. And then some papers, some BYU papers on things like one really interesting one I read was Mormons Probably Aren't Materialists. That was a very interesting read.

He was trying to lay out a different Mormon metaphysic, which he recognized was a minority position.

So, just kind of all this stuff. Then I listened to a certain amount of. Saints unscripted and things like that, but not a heavy diet of that because that's quite sort of a Trite, you know, YouTube stuff and wasn't as relevant. But I definitely listened to all the debates I could with Quaku specifically. And so just taking that stuff in, and you know, I didn't get to get to.

Everything I ended up ordering, there's a couple of things I didn't get to really dive into like I wanted to. But I enjoyed the prep, and it was like interesting kind of getting back into. Uh Mormon Thought That I hadn't been as deep into for a while.

So, those are some of the things. And, of course, you know, familiarizing yourself with the relevant Bible passages, but I was more naming, I was naming sort of more the abnormal stuff, I guess. Yeah, was there anything specifically that you really wish that you had been able to get into during the debate and just ran out of time? Yeah, but it wouldn't have really been... too much about like The question on the floor, but I thought it would have been interesting if we would have had a chance to actually talk about.

The what we know about the Athanasian Creed itself. You know what I mean?

So, like, um. It wasn't written by Athanasius, you know. It was not, it was, it's too late to be written by Athanasius. And some of the phraseology, and definitely the thought, is decidedly Augustine. It's almost like Augustine's Trinitarian views kind of summarized.

in a in a nutshell And I brought that out briefly in the debate where I said, uh, I'm defending a creed here. That's named after an African Christian and whose thought is encapsulating an African Christian's thought. Augustine and then Athanasius, which I thought was interesting because he kept on accusing me of doing European stuff. And so. It's the Athanasian Creed, sometimes not even considered one of the ecumenical creeds.

And it's usually agreed that if a church recites it, if it's a liturgical or confessional church, they maybe do it once a year on Trinity Sunday. Other than that, it's sort of falling out of favor. It's a little favor, it's a little bit long. And it's a little more like hard edged in a sense. Versus the Apostles' Creed, which is kind of like, um.

Well, to be honest, Mormons can almost sign off on the Apostles' Creed if they hold certain intellectual reservations. The Athanasian Creed. There's a change in that. Even then, they were trying to basically say, let's make it where a heretic cannot sign off on this. And that's what they did.

And we don't really know exactly who the author is. We do know the general origin. It appears it kind of originated in Gaul. There's some different dates about, or different ideas about the exact date, but that would have been interesting to get into. Athenaging Creed is interesting.

It's sort of the first creed, I think, that. If a person has an unorthodox view of the Trinity, it's the first one I don't think they can get around. And that's why, in our pre-debate discussion, Kwaku didn't want to debate other creeds because I wanted to do other creeds or more general creeds. He, it was the Athanasian Creed specifically, he kind of had a problem with. And I was like, oh, fascinating.

And I knew the debate would end up being about the Trinity, but I wanted to do it in a different way. Yeah, I mean, I I was uh I did appreciate that, you know. One of the things Mormons tend to do is they want to Pretend that they agree with everything that we say as Christians, and they're just using their language to kind of hijack our words. And that creed is very specific, and I can see why he would have a problem with it and want to debate that creed specifically.

So, yeah, I think that is pretty awesome. How many proposed debating a creed or creeds? He picked that one. Yes, sir. Yeah, so Vocab, really excited to talk to you.

Thanks again for coming on the show. I'm actually just down I-71 from your hometown of Columbus, Ohio. I'm in northern Kentucky, just across the Ohio River from Cincinnati. I'm not from here originally. Oh, sorry, Garrett.

You know what the people in Cincinnati? do when the people in Kentucky throw grenades over the border? What's that? They uh pull out the pin and then throw them back. Nice, nice.

Well, I'm not from here originally, so I grew up out in Utah.

So you and I kind of swapped places. You went west, I came east. But yeah, so kind of interested in the topic, really, because the debate wasn't really specifically about the Trinity per se, although. In essence, that's what you and Quaku discuss. Um but I am interested in in the fact that you that you d debated the um Athanasian Creed.

And I think it's interesting that Kwaku suggested that one in particular, because Um It is one that makes it very difficult for Latter-day Saints to sign on to. I remember, you know, when I was. I've been out of the Latter-day Saint faith for 10 years now, and my dad was struggling. Uh a few years back with Questions about, you know, can I come out of Mormonism? Can he come out of Mormonism and kind of become a Trinitarian?

And he was reading through the Athanasian Creed. And it's very detailed, as you know. And I was kind of like, well, maybe don't start there, you know. But, um, you know, so what are your thoughts on that? Like, it's interesting that also the way the topic was worded, right?

Is the Athanasian Creed true? Because maybe that's not really a way that a Christian would typically. Phrase a debate topic.

So, was that phraseology also suggested by Kwaku?

Well, so Yeah. I have had a strange itch. Ever since I've been dealing with LDS apologetic issues. To bring out in the open the polemical anti-credo. Anti-Christian theological nature.

of the first vision. Whichever count you want to choose, but only the counts that are official. Because of the lines, creeds are an abomination. Talking to Mormons in Arizona, I would always get this kind of.

Well, why are you, you know... We're friends with you guys. Why can't you just accept us? And, you know, we got something different, some truth we want to show you, you know. And the things you say about our doctrine are very hurtful, you know.

And I got a lot of that, you know. And I think the people were sincere, but that I got a lot of that. And I would say, Yeah, you know, your guys is... Doctor, no, it's like it's an abomination. I just can't, it's an abomination.

Yeah. Well, why would you say that? You know, it's an abominable. And I was like, because that's exactly what Joseph Smith said about our beliefs in the first vision.

Well, what? And some of them would know what I'm talking about.

Some of them didn't even know that that line was in there. Their creeds are an abomination.

So I was fascinated by the Mormon move. Into kind of general evangelicalism, kind of, but not really. You guys know what I'm talking about. Mm-hmm. Yet having this hardcore political edge in the very foundation of the church.

I saw a massive contradiction then with the attitude of: can't we hold hands and just learn some truth together? To, no, you came out saying Jesus said our creeds were an abomination. Yeah. What's up?

So, I found a massive disconnect between what Jesus is saying in the first vision. And what Mormons like professed in regards to, well, all churches have a little bit of truth. You know, they tried in the Reformation, they couldn't quite get it together, you know, all this stuff, right?

So I was fascinated by that.

So I was like, I always want to debate. I want to put the feet to the fire to show Mormons hate our creeds because they hate biblical theology, basically. And, you know, they can be nice, whatever, but basically, you can blame it on Joseph, whatever. But that's what I saw.

So I said, hey, I got this debate lined up with Kwaku. You want to do a vocab? I was like, sure. Are the creeds an abomination? That was what I said.

Because to me, that was directly. You know, from the lingo, whatever. He's like, Well, you know, I'm looking through the sources, and this is Kwaku's response. You know, this creed's okay, that creed's okay. How about just the Athanasian creed?

I was like, Okay, is the Athanasian creed an abomination? Because I'm like, He has to answer yes, and then we'll end up talking about it. I think it's fascinating that he would even say, Well, these other creeds are kind of okay. And he even said at one point in their pre-debate stuff. I can't find too much from Joseph Smith and other LDS sources on this creed, but I can find more stuff on the Athletation Creed.

And I'm like, I know what he's trying to say, but I'm like, Bro, you're making your measuring stick of if the creeds are true, these Mormon authorities. Like, this is part of the problem, right? This is what's the source of your revelation, your ultimate authority.

So I wanted to stick to abomination because it said abomination. And he's like.

Well, that's like a harsh word. I don't know exactly what he said for it, but he didn't want to have it be an abomination.

So he's like, how about is it true? I was like, okay, we'll go with that, but I'm going to put forth the whole abomination thing nonetheless. Is it true? That's fine as well. I would have still kind of had one have: is it an abomination?

You know, stick with the language of what Jesus is telling us about ourselves, supposedly, in the first vision. And so that's how it happened. It was, it's like sort of a. Itch of mine. I always wanted to scratch because I think it's a fascinating disconnect in the history and a disconnect against all church history of the real church that comes prior to the restoration.

And so that's where that came from. And I knew it wouldn't be as tight as I wanted it to because I knew it would be going all over here and it'd be about whatever, whatever. But I still wanted to do it for that reason. And that is why. That is why.

Cause I think that. Cognitive distance in those realms is utterly fascinating. And it's kind of like, Let me show you how your very foundation of everything. You hold to involves you saying our creeds are an abomination in Jesus' sight. That's what I'm trying to get at.

Yeah, yeah, good. Thanks for that explanation. And I got to say, the three of us, when Matthew kind of sent us the link to the debate and suggested we watch it. We all kind of questioned that phraseology, you know, is the Athanasian Creed true? And we were like, that's got to be the Mormons suggesting that phraseology.

But yeah, I listened to the bait while I was raking leaves in my backyard. And I got to say, you know, you mentioned all the research that you did, and I think you did a fabulous job. Addressing some of the issues, especially getting kind of getting into. Uh the mind of of Someone who's steeped in Mormon theology, what you did going to talking about eternal law within Mormonism and challenging that point was exactly what I would do as an ex-Latter-day Saint, because it's such a big issue for them to say that eternal law precedes God, right? As Kwaku tried to claim.

And so, yeah, I think you did a really, really good job.

So, why do you think, though, that creeds like the Athanasian Creed and the history of the Christian faith are so important for Christians today?

Well You know, I didn't grow up in a creedal or confessional or liturgical church myself.

So I you know, when I get Got uh older and could look around at church history and stuff like that. You know, kind of respecting. the way that People before us who were believers try to hash these things out. Not just saying it's automatically true or anything, but with the Athanasian Creed, I think you can say. That It's earth.

That the essence is thoroughly biblical. There's a couple of places you could ask about how to interpret a line or something like that, but especially in relationship to the nature of the Godhead. as uh Mormon would refer to it. And so um The the creeds can be helpful. Obviously, there's a cutoff line.

Basically, I put sort of the Athanasian Creed as the last one, because then you start getting into what the reformers called Romanist doctrines. And so looking at that, saying, does this describe? God? Does this describe Jesus? Because the latter part of the Creed deals with Christology, and a Christology also that shuts the door on LDS thought.

As well, and the way it's hashed out. And so that's helpful because it's, it sort of guards and protects the faith once delivered for all the saints. These are, uh, you know Subservient to scripture.

So when we say this is a standard or something, we don't mean it in a sense of by which everything else is measured by. But it's helpful to say: does this accurately reflect biblical teaching on this matter? And if it does, here's a helpful way to approach it. And um Uh The Athenaging Creed, I think, does a good job. With it's not this, it is that, you know, in relationship to the Trinity specifically, and then also in relationship to.

The hypostatic union and who Jesus is and his person and work, I think it's helpful there as well. And so, you know, it's not creeds just because of creeds or anything like that, tradition because of tradition, anything like that.

However, saying, does this match a biblical concept? And it kind of summarizes and systematizes things in a more, you know, boiled down form and direct form. And so that's why they can be helpful things. And, you know, good memory aids, you know, to help us kind of understand these doctrines and say, how do Christians think about this and try to see all that? And there's a certain beauty, I think.

I think the Athanasian Creed has a sort of an inherent beauty to it as well. Again, it's scripture, but the question is, is it true? That's in the very beginning of my debate, I briefly said this, but I basically said scripture is what's true. If the creed's essence matches up with scripture, that's how we know if it's true or not. That's why I briefly said that in the beginning, which the idea is ultimately we're asking, is it biblical?

You know what I'm saying? At least for the Christian, that's what they're saying. Is it biblical? Not what did LDS so-and-so say about it, you know? I liked when I was reviewing the debate, I was also listening to you, and I think you kind of summarized it pretty well when you said that.

The Athanasian Creed and other creeds like it, they defend and define the goodisms. Mm-hmm. And protect us from the bad isms. Yeah, that's where I wanted to break down the essence of what I was getting at. Yeah, I like that line as well.

Yeah, that's a good definition. Like a lot of our listeners are probably not familiar with Nestorianism or Arianism. These are all historical heresies and controversies over the centuries. But yeah, I think you really just summed it up really well there when you just said, yeah, it's defending what's right. and it's protecting us from what's wrong.

Because, like you said, if you're not growing up in a cat, you know, a group, in a church where you're catechized or where you do these creeds, it's so simple to hear what the pastor is saying. And reinterpret it in your mind to think, you know, there's probably a lot of shadow Aryans or shadow modalists in the church today for that reason. You question them about the Trinity and they can trip up on themselves or they don't really understand. what the Trinity is.

So yeah, I think that's really important. Yeah, so sorry for jumping in there, Paul. No, you're good. You're good.

So, yeah, Latter-day Saints struggle with the creeds because, you know, as you noted, Vocab, their founding leader, you know, in the first vision claims that God told them, told him that they're an abomination. But they also struggle with the idea that these creeds are biblical, which you kind of just touched on in your last response. And Quake, you did that in the debate, but. And he did it in an interesting way.

So, in his opening statement, he began by comparing two methods of determining the nature of God. He contrasted determining truth about God from either proof texting from the Bible, which he claims is what Christians do, or quote, taking a step back and thinking what makes sense from the nature of God. Am I going to believe in a nature that doesn't inherently logically make sense? Or can truth be found and can I actually have a relationship with God in heaven? End quote.

Do you think that Quakers set up a false false dichotomy there? Yeah, because you know, they're kind of like.

So, you know, he's not extended in time and space. He's invisible. He doesn't look like us. Your God is nothing. How can I have a relationship with this abstract idea?

And it's kind of funny. It's like You know, if you can have more time to hash this out, it's like Kwaku. Have you ever seen God the Father? Have you ever seen God the Son? Have you ever seen the Holy Spirit?

Although I don't know how you would seem in Mormon theology since he doesn't have his. Uh, full body yet, he's got that spirit body still. That's where I made that uh Joke about. Like slimer.

So it's like, okay. You've never seen him. You have a relationship with him?

So it's sort of a strange thing. They're like, well, here's how God is, and He's visible. Your God's invisible. But it's like, well, you haven't seen him either. By the way, you know, no man is supposed to be able to see God unless he has the.

The priesthood I think already bestowed upon him, right? And you get Joseph Smith. Saw God without the priesthood.

Now I know Mormons have a way they deal with that and stuff, but it's always like. Except this time. But yeah, it's sort of Uh, saying something, and it's also uh. A fallacy of like an appeal to the consequence of something. Meaning, well, this would mean God is like this.

And I. I don't think you can have a relationship with God like that, or you can't think of him properly, something like that. Or it doesn't make sense to me, which is a different kind of fallacy, which is basically from personal incredulity.

So it can't be that way. The question is, what does the Bible teach about the nature of God? And it is logical. You know, it's always been. The Unaided human reason that says, Well, the Trinity doesn't make sense to me.

You know, and it's almost like saying.

Something is distinctly different from my experience in creation since I haven't experienced that. How can that be? We deal with that all throughout, though, when we talk about the characteristics of God: eternality. Everything. And what's crazy though is every single one of those attributes or characteristics that we realize.

So leaving the Trinity aside for a second, these other things, you know, eternality being a big one. You realize every single one of those Mormon destroys.

So I can't comprehend God being like this. But I can't understand this. He's like that. It is literally Pulling God down from the heavens. Putting them in a little human body and saying, I get that.

Instead of recognizing his uplifted Place and stature, it is crafting God as a cow all over again. Yeah, yeah, for sure. I was having a a conversation about um You know, God's foreknowledge and how. Perfect foreknowledge is kind of necessary for God to have in order to. Result in predictive prophecy that would be accurate.

And I was having that conversation with several different Latter-day Saints recently online, and one of them kind of appealed to the idea that, well, because Mormons believe in a preexistence. And we eternally pre-existed with God before. Being created as mortal humans here on earth, then God has that whole eternity into the past. With us to understand us, and that's why he knows us so much so well that he can predict what we'll do. And to your point, that's kind of.

Saying, oh, that's reasoning from okay, a father has to spend time with his children to understand them, therefore, God is a father in that way, right? Rather than going to the Bible and saying, Uh what does What has God revealed to us about his nature?

So, I wanna get your thoughts specifically on the way that Kwaku characterized. Uh inferring God's nature from his revealed word as proof texting. What do you think about that? Yeah, like in his opening, or there was a rebuttal. I don't remember which one, but.

He almost was like. I almost took it as this. You know, LoCab just gave us a bunch of Bible, but that's not really the way to know about God. We don't want to do that in this debate. Let's do this other thing.

Like that's kind of what happened. It was, I mean, really, what it is, is basically, I mean, I take it honestly, frankly, as a plain admission that my conception of God's not really derived from the Bible. I mean, uh.

So let's not do that. Let's do this another way because we're not going to be able to get there from here. And so, uh You know, that's a problematic. That's a problematic thing, you know what I mean? Because you end up referring to Joseph Smith's King Follett discourse instead.

And it really just shows, yeah. LDS thought contradicts the scripture.

So I thought he would maybe do some more Bible verses. Instead, he kind of did like.

Well, Jesus didn't know when he was coming back. Which is no defense of his view of God. It's almost just like this. I mean, I'm like, you hear that in debates with atheists and Muslims a lot. That's where you hear that.

It's like That's why Mormonism ultimately It's just unbelief. It's unbelief about what God said. He is who he said he is, and why everything is. It's unbelief. It's just saying it's sort of a complicated version of scoffing.

I mean, I know Mormons who are faithful don't believe that. They wouldn't think that, but that's really what it is because it's like, God said that, that doesn't make sense. That'd be a big god or a monster god. Joseph Smith says. What does he even really mean by that?

And I'm kind of like, yeah, God is big. Amen. Best line of the sermon. Or whatever the discourse, God is big.

Now, he means big in this other way, and that's where the very conception is problematic.

Well, is he physical?

So he's putting three things inside of him. What do you think is going on here? Russian nesting dolls? That's not what we've ever met.

So Uh You look at it and you realize that's because this is under the sun. Just like Ecclesiastes has this refrain: it's this way under the sun. And people take that phrase a different way, but it's kind of like living life as if God didn't exist with this unaided human reason and no intervention. And this, it's kind of like that. It's like, That's what Mormonism is doing in a way.

Yet it's based supposedly on a vision. But you realize This is just a way for Joseph Smith to put in the mouth of Jesus what he thought. That's really what you end up with. And so it's problematic in its very foundation, but. I knew that he would have to do something like that.

I didn't know it would be so quick and so crass.

So the debate had very little exegesis kind of because of that. Yeah. Yeah. No, I think you did a great job with that, though, exegeting the scripture and getting into the word and showing, you know, what God has shown revealed to us about his nature. And, you know, really like the point you just made about how kind of at every step, Mormonism does.

like destroys the tenets of Christianity. And that even, you know, it extends to the idea of revealed religion, right? They claim to have additional revelation from God, and yet. You know, if you challenge that, you know, then they even challenge the idea of revealed religion. Right, and like you like you were saying with what quake you did, right?

I can't understand it, therefore, it can't be true. rather than looking at the scripture and saying, okay, What does God say about his nature? and therefore what are the implications? Instead, as you said, it's a different form of scoffing.

So, yeah, thanks for your comments. Yeah, I was going to mention too. They worship the creator. I'm sorry, they worship the things in the creation rather than the creator. That's.

They literally Tell they basically tell you they're doing that, you know? But go ahead, brother. Yeah, no, I was just going to mention too that Kwaku several times also said that, well, there's many ways to interpret passages.

So, and that's why we have all these thousands of denominations. And I forget the logical fallacy, but it's almost like: well, there's a hundred. Choices. We can't really know which one it is, so let's just not make a choice at all. Or I'll give you my choice kind of a thing.

So it's like, well, you know, let's not even bother with the Bible because You know, you can just interpret it this way, that way.

So let's just not even point to it.

So let's just talk about what makes sense. At least that's kind of what I got out of his opening statement. Um yeah, and um I mean Yeah. Can everything be interpreted any old way? You know, is that really true?

Uh even with misinterpretations there's probably a limit to what they could sort of bear But if that's the case, the first vision could be interpreted any old way. And that's actually what you see when you get into the literature. A lot of Mormon intellectuals today are less anti-creedal.

So, they have these qualifiers and all these caveats. They're still sort of anti-creedal in the way they phrase things or whatever. But they're like, maybe I actually read one at the end of the debate. I put up the iPad and showed it, and I could bring it up. It was a book published this year by a different Mormon author.

And he was like, Perhaps we misunderstood what Joseph Smith was saying about the creeds.

So, my point is: if they're going to play that game with the Bible, play that game with anything Joseph Smith or any general authority said, too, you would still have this problem of interpretation. But, see, That's where the doctrine of the perpiscuity of the word of God comes in. You know, the main plain things are main and plain. And when you look at these creeds, they're There are so many churches throughout the world that that hold to them. Even ones that would hold to things that we would probably consider to be something that's anti-biblical, but like the Trinity, the creeds regarding the Trinity are just so foundational to Christianity.

It's not talking about church government or secondary issues. This is like the basis. And when you really study the Bible out on these issues, yeah, you can really find it's not just, that's what we were all kind of believed as. As Latter-day Saints, it's kind of like, well, these are all just made by men, they're just philosophies of men. Mingled with scripture, you know, to use a phrase in in Latter-day Saint thought.

But yeah, it's just it's just kind of something that's invented and there's no biblical basis for it. But when you really set that aside, that that assumption aside, you can say, Oh, I mean, sure, let's find it.

So I wanted to talk about one of the first foundational issues that you brought up in your opening statement about biblical monotheism.

So in your opening statement. You stated that there is only one creator, God, who is ontologically unique. Qualitatively different, distinct from creation. Not on a continuum with a created order and a necessary being, not a contingent being.

So that is a lot to unpack. But in general, could you explain a little bit more why you define biblical monotheism this way? And why is it important for Christians to understand and hold to this biblical monotheism?

Well Part of the reason I did it that way. is to head off at the pass. Him referring to, and he didn't really do it, I don't think. Divine Counsel theology is a way to escape. From the Conundrum That he's going to have when it comes to LDS conception of God versus a biblical conception of God.

So a lot of LDS folks have Misused. Dr. Michael Heiser's work, for example, whether you agree with it or not, it's a different question of how do you properly utilize it. And he's spoken on this and basically said, you guys are misappropriating what I'm saying. And even if you I don't I don't hold to some of the Larger Supernatural story that is put together by some of the.

Heyerites. Where you've got the book of Enoch influencing, you know, what you think happened and things like that. I don't hold to that. But at the same time, I can understand some of the big picture items of what's going on. and the big picture item.

There's Lots of Elohim divine beings that could be. Godlike, but there's only one Yahweh. Even Heiser says that.

So, what my point is. Instead of just saying there's only one God, which is true. But I'm sort of heading off of the pass. It kind of Really drilling down. That is the godness of God.

The distinctiveness of God, which is part of what makes him worthy of worship. And so, ontologically unique, there is no being like him. And again, even the divine counsel people, the Christian ones, not the wild ones who, whatever, whatever, qualitatively different, you know, because they kind of have a God. And this relates to also where it says not on a continuum with the created order. You know, they basically have similar to prosperity theology, cats.

produce cats. Dogs produce dogs. What does God produce? Which is funny, first of all, because didn't God make the cats and the dogs too? You know, that's where they get into, well, God is.

of creating us in his image. We're of the God kind, just a little G, you know, it's called the little God's doctrine, basically, in prosperity theology. And that's kind of really what's what we got going on in the LDS story. And so we're on the same, we're the same kind of God, you know, where it's just step one and he's a step 32 or whatever, right? And so.

Drawing that out in a way that is biblical.

So I think, you know, I pointed to proof text for some of those, and you could point to more, you know, distinct from creation. I mean, come on. In a necessary being, not a contingent being.

Now, granted, that's somewhat philosophical, but I'm going to tell you: again, this is intentional. I didn't claim to be the philosopher of the ages, but I wanted to. Show Kwaku, if you're going to do this, like I've seen him, I felt like try to snow people with kind of quasi-philosophical objections. If you're going to do that, I'm setting it up already to make it difficult for you, and I can go there with you if that's what you're going to try to do.

So, I understand everyone in the audience isn't like contingent. Oh, I know what that is. I understood everyone's not going to. It wasn't really. Just for that.

It was for other things that are still true. And I'm trying to say it in a way where they get everything nonetheless. And so, of course, necessary. Yeah. That's basically, to me, I am.

God said, I exist, I be, I is. Not a contingent being, that means dependent upon something else. Wasn't always here, therefore, dependent upon something else. The LDS story really is a different story. It's confusing about what's necessary and contingent.

I don't, I don't, that's that was some of my cross-examination questions had to do with trying to draw that out. What is necessary and contingent? I didn't just say, you know, those things, but I was trying to draw that out within the LDS story. What's what and why? And how does it ground the next thing that is after it and all that kind of stuff?

And what does it mean for it to be after it? Is everything eternal? And if that is the case, how's this not just monism? You know, we didn't get into all that, but doing that.

So I defined it in a way that even the Heiserites in the audience could go, that's right.

Okay. And then also, if he tries it, well, Mike or Heiser says, ah, no, no, no, no, I already got the definition here. Let's go back to this and I'll tell you why. No, you can't do divine counsel to get away from this. And so that didn't happen, but that's why that was there partially.

Just to jump in here, sorry, that's good. I wouldn't call myself a Hizerite, but I do enjoy reading his stuff. And I read his stuff primarily because I started to see Latter-day Saints using it. And so I wanted to really see what he was saying. And what I find interesting is that Latter-day Saints will Just completely brush aside the fact that he says, look, Yahweh is species unique.

Mm-hmm. They're just like, nah, forget that. It's like, well, then you're missing the whole point of what he's saying about what the Bible is saying about divine counsel. He even said, he did a talk on this, and he said. The Mormon understanding of my work would literally turn my work upside down.

Right. You know, it like it would flip the whole point of what he's saying. Whether, again, whether you agree with not or buy into all aspects, like, but uh. Even the smart Mormons amongst them, I feel like they do that kind of thing a lot with other people, with all kinds of stuff, you know, theosis. No, that's it's not what you're trying to do.

No, deification, you know, all that. No, no, no, no, stop it. That's not right. That's not fair. That's not cool, guys.

You know? You see that a lot with the early church, too. Like, I can't count how many times they bring up, I think it's the quote from Justin Martyr, where he refers to Jesus as the second God. And they're like, see, they believed in two separate gods and it's like, well, I mean. You can't just pluck out church history quotes like that because Mormonism is funny.

It's like. They lost the gospel. You know, there's great apostasy, fell away, you know, just they lost the authority, and they're like, Look right here what this guy said. It's like Everything is false. And then they go digging through church history to find what's true.

And that's why you'll hear Kwaku say, because a lot of them say, well, see, the closer you are, and then it kind of gets away farther from it and all this kind of stuff. But they're using kind of Justin Martyr. It seems like there's elements here where he had he didn't have a fully biblical understanding of the relationship to the father of the son. And it's like, yes, you're imitating some of his error, but I don't, in a way that Justin Martyr wouldn't also imitate, especially if Justin Martyr, because I don't think he did, had access to the full canon. There's indications that he did not.

It's like, but that is what they'll do. It's like, Bro, I know you haven't read these guys on this. And if you're going to quote them on this, what about this? You know, because they're saying something about Athanasius, it's like, do you know what Athanasius said about the incarnation? Like, what is this?

You know, take away, it's very disingenuous, but it's a whole project among the intelligentsia. And then the popular guys will grab these quotes that the intelligentsia got, and then they'll kind of utilize them. Very rarely do they know what's going on. But they uh it's a real abuse of the patristics. I mean.

Not to be mean, but then again, you know, it is coming up on Reformation Day here, so whatever.

Sort of like Roman Catholics act like they own early church history and all this stuff supporting Romanist ideas when, no, that's not the case. You know, the church fathers. Aren't in unison on everything. They're doing their own thing on different stuff, whatever, whatever. And that's actually partially what's so amazing about these creeds is how they get all the big stuff right.

And there it is. And that's what they were teaching people who were getting baptized and being new converts and stuff. It's like, all right, there, we got the, we got the big stuff right.

Okay, here we go. I'm glad that, amen. You know, God, God worked it out with those first generations and those first creeds as far as that big stuff. And that's good. Yeah, and one thing I always rebut to Latter-day Saints is: sorry, Michael, just one quick word, is.

You know, a lot of times we think. That uh That in church history, the doctrine. you know, that it was Awesome during the time of the apostles, and it slowly got worse until the Reformation. But then I think. Was it uh Who is it at Ligonier?

He teaches the church history series. Steve Lawson or something. It might be Steve Lawson, or it might be Godfrey. Maybe, but he was saying it's actually the opposite, you know, like right after the apostles, we see this huge, sharp, you know, recession and understanding. You know, Gnosticism was creeping in, they had all these different heresies, Arianism was creeping in.

Uh, you know, there's the Donatist controversy, there was so much stuff that they had to deal with in the early church. And it was gradually over time when you see them working these issues out in more codified theological language that they really started to figure out: okay, how does the human nature of Christ relate to the divine nature of Christ? Is it two persons? Is it two natures in one person? Which is how it ended up.

You know, deciding it through the scriptural witness. And so, in Arianism, like, well, Christ isn't created, so they developed the Nicene Creed to kind of overcome that.

So, we see throughout time that God is, even though there were people you could quote and say, Hey, here's where he agrees with me on this thing, or here's where he agrees on this thing, and they might not be biblical, but we see God working through time slowly, you know, leading them towards truth and granting more light and understanding of scripture.

So Yeah. I was going to kind of just mention something too, because vocab, you were talking about how they'll. just cherry pick things from You know, scholars and early church fathers. And I'm like, man, they do the same thing with the. With the Bible too, you know, the Bible's only Correct as it's translated, or only true as it's translated correctly, and it's been corrupted, and plain and precious truths have been taken up.

But then, when you get to the part where it talks about. Baptism for the dead. Oh man, that verse right there is. 100% translated correctly. We go from 1 Corinthians to.

Dunkin' someone for Adolph Hitler. All right. Yeah, it's like, okay, you know, um. Just, you can't choose. You know, if you're going to use the argument that it's corrupt and, You know, if you can use that, then I can use the God of Spirit.

What is spirit? See, you don't understand. Oh, God. Spirit is refined matter. But, yeah, I was going to kind of bring up, you know, I talk to Latter-day Saints a lot, and I'm more of a soteriology guy myself.

I like to talk about grace, and I'll be talking about forensic righteousness and I've got a couple of friends where I'll kind of. Kind of build this foundation. And they're and they'll be cornered, like, okay, like, yeah, this is what. the Bible seems to be teaching, and then their escape hatch is.

Well, I don't know if I could ever, you know, leave. Like Mormonism and become a Protestant because I can't accept the Trinity. And so they'll completely. I don't know if you've seen that happen before, but. Like, I have that happen to me all the time.

I'll just change the topic to the Trinity and be like, I can't cross this hurdle. And it just seems like it's such a. A stumbling block. For Latter-day Saints, and I was going to ask why you think that. Why that is.

Well um You know There's certain strands of Polymical thought built into the foundation of Of the LDS story, you know, we've kind of discussed. you know, supposedly a dislike for creeds, for example. A discounting of Church history. And of course, a strong anti-Trinitarian strand. And um Even, you know, it was kind of going around at the time.

Because you know you had the first great awakening awakening, which was uh more Reformed or Calvinistic in his essence. But then later on you have a uh A strong anti-Calvinist strand within a lot of folk American Christianity. Mormonism Has all those elements. It's almost like what was happening at certain grassroots level. Um Kind of do-it-yourself kind of denominations in a way just kind of embraces all those things.

And so One of them is anti-Trinitarianism that seemed to be very present. Uh, with a lot of these groups at that time, you know, later on, you I believe it's later on that you see it with Jehovah's Witnesses, and it becomes this main thing because it's like, well, that's the Greek philosophy, and that's part of the corruption. And it would destroy their understanding of the material universe. It would destroy their understanding of how many gods there are. It's not tritheism for this sphere.

It's, you know, monotheism and a Trinitarian understanding. And so it just becomes this big thing, kind of like a. Also, the prize that they hold up of what they call free agency or agency as well is very, very important. And so sometimes it's like, you know, you'll see some of the LDS members are like, well, maybe I could, but not that Calvinism, you know, because it's such a strong thing built on there. And that's fine.

Hey, just Jesus, just get Jesus. You know, that's all good. But you see that kind of stuff really hammered in hard. And it's somewhat similar in some ways to what you see with Muslims. You know, maybe I could accept Jesus as dying for this, you know, but this Trinity, that's one of the big stumbling blocks.

The triune nature of God is a massive stumbling block. You know, the Quran in its In its scriptures, in its surah, is saying, Do not say three. Do not say three. You know, that means don't say God's a trinity, right? Did uh survive?

Did I ever? Tell tell anyone to take a Did you ever tell anyone to take yourself and your mom as gods? No, I didn't say that. Jesus says to Allah, you know, it's anti-Trinitarianism baked into the very fabric of the religion, and uh, it's almost like This marker, it's this big, massive marker of orthodoxy and unorthodoxy. And also, sort of, are we going to bow our knee to scripture?

It's like this, I think it's very important because we're biblical Trinitarians. That's why we hold to it. And so it just shows the. Kind of the negation of all that. And that's problematic, you know, and it's ultimately because there's other sources of revelation, there's other ultimate authorities.

And so there's going to be a rejection of that. But in a way, that shows how unique the Trinity is. You know, everyone says it's like something else, but at the end of the day, you notice no one accepts it except for Orthodox Christians, you know, with a small O. If it's like everything, how come, you know, everybody's not so cool with it? They're not cool with it.

It's almost like Not that Trinity equals salvation, but you notice that that's one of those things that's almost always rejected across the board. with uh false religions, including Theode is theology. I was going to bring up too that I've recently started talking with a lot of oneness. I don't know if they're one as Pentecostals or just oneness. I'm not sure exactly, but it's just a group on Facebook of Oneness.

And when they try to interact with me, Their whole worldview is just completely different from ours, so that when they even try to interact with me, They ask questions that are Just In completely different categories than what we would use, they say, so okay, when you're talking about Jesus, when he says he's God, is that the spirit part of Jesus or the physical part of Jesus? You know, it's like they can't wrap their minds around. The categories that we're trying to think in, and we're trying to show them in, okay, this is how we're categorizing it because the Bible says this. You know, we're not thinking it, we're not dividing Jesus into God is the spirit part and then or the divine part, and you know what I mean? Like, the father is this part, and the son is this part.

So, it's kind of the same thing with Latter-day Saints. It's like they don't understand the concept of one being in three persons because it's so, like you said, and it's so baked in a worldview that person equals being.

So, to say three persons, that must mean three beings. And I think it makes sense in terms of when you're talking to humans, because I'm a human being, you're a human being. But And we don't share the same being.

So they say, well, how can God have three persons with one being? That makes no sense to me. And then they'll also say, the Bible doesn't say that.

So it's just really hard to get over these theological hurdles, these terminologies that are just so foreign to them. Yeah, I almost try to sometimes just get Almost like to the Muslim, to the Mormon, just can you Could you embrace this concept or idea as an overarching principle? that God could be different. Unlike anything else in creation. Is that a possibility?

Could it be like that? The Muslims are a little more like willing to say yes there, but still reject the Trinity. The Mormon, it seems to be the answer is just no.

Well, it can't be like that. You know, that's why they're like, well, if it's immaterial, it's no thing. It's nothing. You guys are atheists. I actually saw that a lot in the literature saying Protestants have made atheism the most propagated religion in the world.

Because their God is nowhere at no time and he's no thing because he's not physical.

So we're propagating atheism by our creeds. It was an accusation I saw in the literature. It's a fascinating way to look at it, you know. Yeah, I've been seeing more more and more LDS these days kind of Be willing. uh once they're kind of Pressured a little bit to kind of say, yeah, we do believe in a different God.

But I remember when I was trying to defend Mormonism. You know, I'd just be like, yeah, the Trinity is totally false and man-made, but. It's not a make it or break it thing. You know, Protestants are still Christian. You know, I try to say that it's not a.

It's not something that is an essential To Christianity. You know, I try to just sweep that under the rug. And so I see I kind of see that a lot too. And so I guess in your opinion, would you say that it is crucial? You know, to believe in the Trinity?

And if so, how do we explain that to? our LDS friends and and family.

Well yes, you know. A god. Must be accepted as he has revealed himself. But sometimes I feel like when you answer these kind of questions, it's tricky because it's like, Do any of us have the exact conception sort of right exactly you know I don't punt to mystery on everything, but I'm okay when people say the mystery of the Trinity. That's where the LDS apologists.

Ah, see, it's illogical. That's why they're just saying it's a mystery. But. I think that's okay. And the Bible uses the word mystery, not specifically in relationship to the Trinity, but it does speak about God's thoughts and God, He's different, you know?

And so the Trinity is an example of that.

So You know It's very difficult to really understand what we're talking about when we talk about the gospel. without understanding the the father the son and spirit the persons involved becomes uh pretty messy Um And so It really is important because Um So much of the biblical narrative. Does not make sense without a Trinitarian understanding, and you can't do justice to so much scripture. Without an understanding, of course, either of the Trinity, you know. That book I mentioned, Wrestling the Angel, has an interesting thing.

Interesting section on the Trinity as well. Uh Yeah, let me let me let me show you one part This is from Wrestling the Angel. Let me just read part one part of this book by Terrell Bivens. Check this out. Mormonism's rupture with traditional Trinitarian thought Like Unitarianism, represents a rejection of the Nicene solution.

but it does so by moving in the direction opposite to Unitarianism. Instead of reducing the Trinity to one, Mormons expanded the unity and Trinity to three physically distinct, fully individuated persons. Mormons trace their doctrine of deity to Smith's 1820 Theophany, in which he claimed to personally behold God himself, who appeared in a shaft of light and did in reality speak to me. Mormons, however, may see in this visionary episode more theological illumination than the young Smith did. They emphasize, for example, a radically new conception of divinity revealed at this time.

Smith here learned the Father and the Son are real, separate beings with glorified bodies of flesh and bones. One more paragraph. Actually, it is difficult to know exactly what Smith concluded about the nature of the Godhead from this experience. In one of his very first subsequent references to the vision, the only import registered was the assurance that, quote, he had received the remission of his sins. That Smith did not even reflect immediately on its bearing on the Trinity is evident in his lack of attention to the very question of number when describing his experience.

By the way, that's where the spin comes in. He's trying to account for the differences and the visions. There, if you guys, I know you guys know that, but to the audience. Uh Just a few sentences left here because I find this is fascinating, though, the way this is, right? In his earliest 1832 account, he recorded that the Lord opened the heavens upon me, and I saw the Lord, and he spake up unto me, saying, Joseph, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee.

Leaving unclear whether his two uses of Lord referred to one personage or two in succession. Really, he's only saying that because subsequent visions, it's obviously referring to the same person, but whatever. In his 1838 retelling and all other first and second-hand accounts, Smith more clearly indicated that he saw two personages, one of whom spoke unto me, calling me by name. Again, notice, you know, it's not let's exegete scripture or anything like that. And I know there's only a couple paragraphs, but honestly, folks.

It's clear, let's exegete the first vision, the second vision, the third vision, you know, the different accounts as we're referring to that. Let's exegete the accounts of the vision and find out what we can glean from that and exegete the kingfolt discourse and exegete. That's what's going on, exegeting. And it's a real, a real shame. But I found that helpful, but also interesting.

You know, he was kind of hinting at, he gets into it later of something you'll hear Kwaku and others like him say, Well, we could be Trinitarian if you consider a social Trinitarian. And that's not true accurately. It's not true either. If you read the Eastern Fathers on this, you know, the Gregories and all those guys, they're not advocating what Mormons are advocating. The social trinitarism solution is not a solution for them either.

But again, they just co-opt this stuff and it sounds like good. And they're like, see, more of the Eastern model. Not the no, that's not what you hold to. This is read those guys. It's not what you're saying at all.

The differences aren't so great between East and West that the East can fit inside of it, what Joseph Smith was saying. It just, it's not, it's not real. And so it's disingenuous to act otherwise. But that's what you see a lot of these apologists doing these days, at least that I've seen. Yeah, and I remember I was just thinking about it too.

Back when I was A novice LDS apologist, you know, I would just kind of point to. Paul at Mars Hill, and he's like, I found this inscription. you know, to the unknown god. whom therefore you ignorantly worship. Him, I preach to you.

And I'd be like, see, you know, they didn't know. What God was like, but he says that they were still worshiping him ignorantly.

So, you know, we all have the same God and Yeah. Right. In that passage, it says he does not dwell in temples made of hands. And Mormons are like, God lives in houses. He's physical.

He's living somewhere. Anyways.

Well, yeah. But I mean, gosh, I mean, you have to take away my fun of cherry-picking the. The part that supported my beliefs, you know, of course, I never brought up. That part that you mentioned there. I don't think I really.

Got into uh Into looking at context too much until after. It sounds like you were a good Mormon apologist there, brother. I was like the best ever. But yeah, it's like I came out and I started reading the Bible. I'm like, what is this?

Is this the same book that I've been using to debate Christians this whole time? Like, what on earth is going on? The next line, Acts 17, 24. The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth. Not served by human hands.

So what about What about the Mormon apologist's best argument? And I'd say that is You know, it doesn't say the word Trinity. in the Bible. I'm just kidding. That's not their best argument.

But. You know, I just say, you know, They will say like, okay. The Trinity is not taught expressly. in the Bible. You know, if you had to point to something just to do a quick rebuttal to that, what do you think your go-to would be?

Well, you know, I like the benediction in Corinthians. Um I mean, I like Matthew 28. You know, people say, oh, I don't like Matthew 9, but. Where all three persons are mentioned, and it's clear there's a Uh co-equal aspect to it. I think those are important.

I mentioned some of them in my opening statement.

So here's these verses: you know, what do you do with these?

So there's a number of passages to explore. Um But it's hard because they'll kind of gloss over it and kind of To other stuff or ask other questions, but if we could sit down and Can we look at these individual verses and see what they really say? Um What what do they really say? How do we explain all these verses when we put them together? Otherwise, if we don't have a God who is triune, you know?

But I mean, again, it's The physicality of the Mormon God. Disallows a Trinitarian conception. They are antithetical by definition. uh for the kind of that fact alone, you know? But that'd be, and you know, of course, the plurality of gods would as well, I think.

Yeah, I mean, the Trinity is completely impossible and contradictory to the. Mormon understanding when you've got the Father and Jesus both having physical bodies. And it says they can't dwell in the heart of man. You have to be the Holy Ghost. And so they've all got these limitations, they've all got different.

limitations and You know, it just changes the entire gospel, you know, down to the very end if you don't accept a Trinitarian. position You know, like it's one of the things that Kwaku was talking about. Like, oh, there's this law that precedes God. The gospel path precedes God, and He just really isn't that special. You know, we should just be worshiping that other stuff instead, if that's the case.

Yeah, I mean And that's what's interesting. It's almost like sometimes I wonder. Are Mormons really even worshiping God? I don't mean we know that's not the same conception of God, but it's like. What exactly are they praising?

Their deities deity four. You know, it's a sort of a strange thing. It's almost like. God, I love you so much because you're going to help me get what I want. I mean, it's almost like Joseph Smith gets more praise.

All praise to the man. I don't think it says all, but praise to the man, the hymn. Which on Kwaku's channel, there's a video of him singing that song, Praise to the Man, all about Joseph Smith. The real thanks is: you know, I want to thank Joseph Smith right now. For giving us the revelation that we could become gods.

I mean, that's kind of what it's almost like he gets more praise because I don't really know exactly what. Heavenly Father really deserves much credit for. uh with with any with any With any seriousness of doctrine. I think they might point to Their conception of like free will or free agency, right? Where war in heaven was fought to.

To preserve that principle, that gift that God was going to give people. Um I think that's what they would. What I think they would probably point to is where we as making him worthy of Of worship is that he gives that to. To humans. Yeah, Jesus' plan helped save us from the Calvinist devil.

We're gonna find the cow he's We're gonna force them all to accept the plan of salvation. Wow, that was a perfect Satan impersonation. Thank you. I was gonna add something funny too. I served my mission in France and Belgium.

and the song Praise to the Man in French is even more explicit. The first line is Glory to He who saw God the Father. And that always struck me as even weirder, even as a missionary, as like.

Okay, praise to the man is, you know, it's pushing the line, but like glory to him, it's like that's way over the line. I always thought that was funny. Describe glory to you, Joseph Smith. Glory. Yeah, it's tough.

Yeah. So are we are we uh are we on question eight, Michael? I forget. Where are we at? I think we're on nine.

Okay. All right, so in your rebuttals section of the debate, you focus specifically on. addressing the definition of the Trinity as compared to the Godhead. as believed in the LDS Church.

So you also compared how Christians believe that God is the first cause. who created time, energy, matter, space, and all laws in our universe. while the traditional LDS view is significantly different.

So, we've talked a little bit about this throughout the discussion, but is there anything you'd like to add to this concept of, you know? the traditional Christian view versus the LDS view. And so why is it so important for LDS to understand these issues? It seems very metaphysical, very philosophical, but why is it important for them to understand all this?

Well, you know, um Gods Creation. The fact that he is the one who created all these things, it really is tied in with his sovereignty. You know, God owned the cattle on a thousand hills. I don't know how the Mormon God really does, though, because that stuff was already there. And he crafts it, and I guess he makes the cattle.

How does he own the cattle on a thousand mills in any meaningful way? What about it? of him and how is it that we Live and move and have our being with that kind of conception in a real robust sense. Doesn't seem that we do. you know, John 1-3.

All things were made through him. And Without him. was not anything made That was made. In him was life. Notice he's the very source.

Of this and the life. was the light of men. You know, I believe I read in there. Colossians 1 at some point during the debate. If I'm not mistaken.

He is the image of the invisible God. the firstborn of all creation. And We look at that and we understand some of the. bad interpretations this is means preeminent prominent For by him All things were created. In heaven, amen.

on earth. Visible. and invisible. in heaven and on earth. whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities See, to take this serious.

If you've got a God over there, God back there, this is saying God did all that. Know they localize it and all this, but it's not taking the language seriously anymore. It sounds like. John and Paul thought the same thing about this issue though. Whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities, all things were created through him and For him, and he is before all things.

And in him, all things hold together. How is it that he's needed to hold them together if they were already there? I mean. That's unclear how that works exactly. How does he have that?

Ability. And you go on and look at it, and you're like, wow, that's a God worthy of worship, you know. Not just sort of the home decorator God of Mormonism. You know, stuff's kind of messed up. Let's fix it up here and put this on that shelf.

And he's like a home decorator. You know, he's Bob the Builder. The tools, you know, the stuff's out there, the planks and all that. He just. What that's that's not God, this rearranger God, you know, who's taking.

Cans of Plato and making, look, I got a French fry I made. That's not, you know what I'm saying, who God is, it's not who He is in the Bible. It's never that way, but that's the concession of God. And it's just trying to say, Let's go big. Let's see how big and amazing and powerful and utterly epic God is.

Let's go big. Let's see what the Bible really says. And let's take it way out there. That's why it's so great if we can really spend time in those passages in Isaiah. And I feel like when Christians go through and read those very unique passages in Isaiah, they just want to break out and worship, kind of like Paul did at the end of Romans 11.

And the Mormon is just, it's sad in a way for them. They're deprived of joy of really enjoying their creator. They're sitting there.

Well, that can't be right, or how can I explain that away? Or let's localize that, or that's not really what that means, or that must be a corrupt part, or well, that can't be true because of what Joseph Smith here. It's so sad. It just robs their joy. John 10, 10, the thief came to steal, kill, and destroy.

And part of the beauty of being a creature who actually is in proper covenant relationship with God is you know him and enjoy him for who he is. And you get to see that. And it makes you want to break out, you know, because you're like, wow. And the Mormon is sitting there the whole time polemical against this whole description of God as he reveals himself. It's a, they are being robbed of a beautiful privilege of really worshiping God in his fullness and getting a vision of that, you know?

And it's just a tragic, tragic thing. Yeah. Yeah, God created the heavens and the earth.

So, which of the galaxies is not? the one that the God of Mormonism Organized. Right. Which of the galaxies is the realm of some other. God.

You know, it gets really messy. I've always been a stargazer. You know, I love the Sky View app. I'll probably go out after we're done tonight and see what I can see, point it up at the sky and, you know, look at Venus, look at Mars, that kind of thing. I love doing that.

I've always loved doing it. And, you know, after I left. uh Mormonism, I've I commented to people, you know, that It was totally different. I felt like I was really worshiping God for the first time with joy and with. love and awe and wonder.

You know, because of how great and amazing. God is. He created everything, as you quoted, invisible, visible, and invisible. And that passage destroys the idea that there could be another galaxy or another star or set of planets that. That is ruled over by a separate god.

Yeah, this passage is like would be applied to every god over every little locality, but it's ridiculous. But you know, your experience that you just shared there, Paul. It's literally the opposite of what the LDS apologist tells you, or you're a God, it's just like an idea in your head, which is really nothing. You know, that's very impersonal, and you know, The actual experience is the opposite. What you're being sold there is a bill of goods.

No, when you strip away all the layers of creation, you've tried to throw on top of the creator. To make him more like us, when you strip that away and start to see him for who he is, it's almost like. We pray that the LDS members can have a Mount Transfiguration experience in a sense, you know, where Jesus sort of temporarily unveils who he really is in a way, and they see this glory, and they're just like, what? You know, we hope for that, for people that we care about who are. In the LDS organization to be able to see that, the actual transcendence of God.

And it doesn't lead you to be like, oh, that's a weird space alien, which ironically, their God is a space alien. But instead of doing that, you're like, whoa. And a creature is in awe. when they when they kind of see In a sense, they're created for who he is, and it's a beautiful experience. It's not a bad experience, it's sort of rapturous.

In a way, you know, and we're created for that. You know, I'm a, you know, it's a kind of the desiring God, the Christian hedonism idea. It's delightsome to revel in that. And that's exactly what Psalms are saying, you know, whereas the Mormon one, it's like, you know, God's kind of like a guy in the neighborhood, he's just been here longer. He's at a house.

See, the longer his house has got a lot of updates and stuff, he's just a guy in the neighborhood. You know, that's who their God is. He's like, he's old crazy Joe that's down the street, but he's, you know, it's like, no, that's not who God is, man. You know, the earth is his footstool, bro.

Okay. Going back to what you said earlier, too, like you said, when you talk to a lot of Latter-day Saints, they say, So you just want to worship God in heaven? Yeah, what's with that? Why would you want to do that? Can't you just do that here?

It sounds so good. Turn on K-Love. You're good, bro. Exactly. Yeah, it sounds so.

It sounds so. you know, mundane to them. It sounds like boring, worship God in heaven. Right, but but when you really understand how Unique God is like, I think that was one thing that really hit me when I understood: you mean there's nothing and no one even close to what God is like. You know, when you have this idea that there's this infinite You know, regression of gods, it's kind of like, yeah, it's just part of the chain, and I hope to become like that someday.

But it's like when you understand there's nothing and no one like God, and no one has ever done anything like He has. He's completely unique. Like, there's nothing else you can witness. You can't go, you know, you can't go to the Grand Canyon and see anything like that. You can't go to the Great Wall of China and see anything like that.

He's totally unique. And that's just mind-blowing. Like it just, it just makes you, it almost makes you feel small in a way. You know, it's like you're opening up to a brand new world you've never even thought of. And it's like You know, as a lot of day saint, I always felt like, well, God is just like me, so he can relate to me.

And it seems weird that God is so much different and other than we are. Why would you want to worship that? But it's like, when you understand it, you understand it. And what is that? That you are mindful of him in the son of man, that you care for him.

And that's where the beauty comes in. You're like, wow. You know, it's it's it's like uh you know You're special like everyone else. You know, that's kind of what they're telling God. You're special.

like everyone else god's like no i'm actually special He gets the actual Valentine's sticker that says you're special, not you're special like everyone else. Yeah. Yeah, so You kind of alluded to it at Oh, Michael, did you have something? Yeah, I was just gonna jump in real quick. I'm sorry.

Just. Kind of with what Vocab and Matthew are saying here, too. And I was just kind of thinking like Mormons. You know, one of the things that they're so excited about in the celestial kingdom is not only are they going to be able to become gods, but it wouldn't be heaven without our spouses. And what it all boils down to, I think.

Is that, you know, even though they think that God can relate to them more, ultimately they're not satisfied. With this god that they worship, because if they were, they wouldn't need these other things. in heaven And that's where we stand, is we are totally satisfied. With God, and I don't think they are.

So I just kind of that jumped out to me while you guys were talking. Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is my strength. But God is the strength of my heart.

and my portion forever. Psalm 73, 25 through 26. That's worshipful. That's real. Amen.

I don't think an LDS member can legitimately say that. Yeah. Yeah, so thanks, Michael. That was a great point. And vocab, that's you know, that quote from Psalm 73, beautiful.

Absolutely beautiful.

So, we've at several points in the discussion, we've kind of alluded to it, but one of the deepest topics that was covered in the debate with Kwaku was the concept of eternal law and material versus immaterial. Kwaku asserted that if God is immaterial, God does not exist. In other videos of his, he said that God is an idea. And when you asked him, you know, well, what about this LDS concept of eternal law? You know, I was out in my yard with my rake over my head going, yeah.

Because you got it. You know what I mean?

You got it. That is the challenge to that Mormon claim. Right, if you're going to say that eternal law. precedes God. Then, what is the?

I think how did you ask the question? What is the content of that eternal law. And he didn't have an answer for it. Um Would you like to say more on that topic? Is it a problem?

That we believe that God is immaterial. Can He have existence without it? And what were you trying to demonstrate in that kind of cross-examination? Massive problem, massive problem. Uh, for LDS conceptions of God.

So that's my, you know, laying my cards on the table. That's my presuppositional side. where you want to show. The nature of unbelieving thought always results. and self-defeating statements.

And here at the bottom root level. of everything in the Mormon story of reality. You have a massive contradiction. And so you've got Mormon Revelation literally saying the elements. are eternal.

In the beginning with God. These are quotes. Intelligence was not created or made. Neither indeed can be. Huh.

And then you look at it. And it's like, okay. You don't believe in concepts, they're just ideas, so they're not real. That's how they'll sometimes describe it. And yet you have this eternal law.

that has information content in it. But yet it's physical, or is it physical? What what is the eternal law then? Because no one can place it there because it's Sort of like the playbook by which the gods end up operating by.

So they're not the ones putting the content of it. And the way Terrell Gibbons describes eternal laws, he says this, and this is interesting. And I think this is faithful representation of Mormonism. This is page 46 of Wrestling the Angel. The pro this process of repentance, rechoosing, continually self correcting, and reorienting one's life continues until one finds oneself in harmony with God.

Sounds kind of Buddhist Eastern there, by the way. and the eternal laws that undergird the universe.

So A goal you have is to conform yourself to this eternal law that undergirds the universe. It's almost like the bottom axiom of the system. But what is it? How is it? How is it there and where is it?

It's like this idea. But how? Ideas are mental, they come from the mind. And that's where you get Mormons who embrace weird versions of like emergentism, where properties are emerging from matter.

So is that the case? Is the eternal law emerging from matter that's already there? But it sounds like they're saying it's co-eternal with matter. They almost end up with a weird version of the Trinity, you know, the matter that's eternal, the intelligences that are eternal, and the eternal laws that are eternal. It's it's a very bizarre sad thing because you still have to have something bottom But it would seem like the Mormonism view is material or physical, but it's not because you have eternal law.

So, law that is forever. Law, that's content. It has to be placed there by a mind. I mean, you could kind of say it like laws require lawgivers. How is it just there?

How is it to the Mormons and audience? that you're telling us eternal law is a brute fact of the universe. How is it that it's a brute fact of the universe? And I don't think there's any satisfactory answer. And I think the eternal law, which you can't.

It doesn't have physical characteristics, and yet you criticize us for having invisible God. and yet matters what's eternal and you seems like you've got them both there. It's a contradiction in the system. It's like matters eternal plus this idea is eternal. Uh So, really, isn't the eternal law kind of the real God of the system?

Isn't that really what's ultimate in the system? Because it certainly is not God or any given God. Eternal law is the ultimate because the gods have to abide by the eternal law. You know, the euthanophro dilemma. The idea is that there's these two horns, and it's like, you know, dealing with morality and the nature of God.

And I think it's destructive towards like polytheistic conceptions of God, but not for Christian monotheism. And that's where we're said to be able to split the horns of the dilemma, as it were. Mormonism is like, Gladly I'll fall on one of the horns of the dilemma. The moral law and all that stuff is before God, and he's just adhering to it, showing what the whole point of the euthanophoral dilemma was trying to show. He ain't really nothing, he ain't really in charge, he ain't really setting stuff up.

He's conforming to something else. That's what's ultimate.

So Massive problems.

Now, there is a philosophical class. And you know, you guys know this, but of Mormon philosophers, really bright people, and they're trying to put this all together. And they can be very good at snowing you. And I'm not trying to, I don't mean lying, but kind of like these information dumps. And well, our philosophy accords with Uh, and then like read this paper with a thousand footnotes and almost like death by footnote, but it really never actually answers the question.

They end up talking about things a lot and having a bunch of literature related to it, but it's not actually answering the base bottom line of the question of what we're actually talking about here, which is what is the eternal law? How did it get there? Is it physical? Because it doesn't sound physical, but yet everything's material. But how's the eternal law material?

Help me out. I mean, I'm trying to still work through these because, um, It was sort of later on that I realized, you know, I didn't know. When I first dealt with LDS stuff, I didn't know about an internal law. Then I like come upon it. I'm like, this is like the most important thing in a way.

What do we do here? Let me just read. We'll not see from him on this. And then I'll be interesting to see what you guys say. Look at this.

Mormon thought, this is from Terrell Givens again, page 44. Mormon thought posits an unconventional cosmos. A reconfigured Godhead. And a radical human anthropology. The universe, in Mormon thought, is eternally existent rather than a product of divine summoning out of nothingness.

There's a slam on creation. Creationo ex nihilo. Dualism is rewritten as two-tiered monism. Ah! Spirit as more refined matter.

By the way, I'm just saying, I don't know if everyone understands the language, but this is not good. That's what I'm saying. This is like decidedly unbiblical, what he's saying here. And laws are themselves as eternal as God. The godhead consists of three separate and distinct deities, two of them embodied.

With an unembodied Holy Ghost, but more in thought encompasses a seldom discussed feminine divine as well. Human beings, meanwhile, come to earth trailing clouds of glory from a premortal state, carry with them the seeds of divinity and aspire to become through the atonement of Christ full partakers of the divine nature. I mean, it seems accurate to Mormon thought, but you realize how decidedly unbiblical the system is. Again, this is why I like the Terrell Gibbons book when I was looking at it, because it's sort of an intellectual take on trying to synthesize itself. I find it fascinating, as well as the whole thing of the eternal law.

I'd like to see more Christians and LDS people explore that and really nail them down on it and see what happens there.

Well, the question really becomes: if law is as eternal as God, Then, why does God have to follow it? And what would be the outcome if God does not? You know, the Book of Mormon kind of con kind of touches on that when it says, you know, that. That he would cease to be God.

Well, then what would he be? Right, then if God ceased to be God, then what would we have? We would have nothing. You would have the eternal law, would some other. Intelligence rise up to become God?

How do you know that that the God of Mormonism will never fail to not live up to that eternal law. Mm-hmm. Yeah, Smith said this when he made in 1839, Joseph Smith, when he rejected creation ex Nigel, said this, quote. Anything created cannot be eternal. and earth water All these had their existence in an elementary state.

From eternity. It's uh Unclear what's happening, but they just don't like creation next Nihilo. I mean, Smith talked about the eternal duration of matter. But it's interesting, what's crazy is if you look at the Mormon intellectual class. There's basically three views of this, and that's where that paper comes interesting.

I believe the guy's last name is Brown, but it's called Mormons Probably Aren't Materialists. And he shows that you don't have to hold to some of the old radical materialistic conceptions, and there's divergent views and opinions. On this. And this is such a big worldview issue. Like, this is not the kind of thing Christians can really.

actually argue about, you know, really, but Mormons can. And it's a fascinating little paper to look. He's like, well, there's three different ways to look at this. And one of them sort of is an accidental Platonism, the other is sort of a radical materialism. And then here's his version, which he views as sort of a right third way that I don't fully understand, but it has to do with utilizing this concept of, I can't remember how he said it, the spirit of Christ or the light of Christ, which is almost this unfilled in concept in early Mormon thought.

Is it the light of Christ or the spirit of Christ? Do you guys remember? I think it's Light of Christ. Light of Christ. Yeah, yeah.

The author of this paper uses that as sort of the thing that everything is grounded upon, which is not clear, though. And it's clear that wasn't really fleshed out that way, but it's almost like he's using a less defined earlier Mormon concept to try to get it. But the point is, Um it just shows how There's a lot of problems at the very base of reality. with how Mormons view their very metaphysic. Yeah, yeah.

One quick question before I keep going. Are we good on time? Did you want to? We're basically almost done. Uh don't want to keep you up too late or anything.

Yeah, matter. and spirit are of equal duration. Both are self existent. They never began to exist. That's partly Pratt saying that.

I believe it's in his essay called The Absurdity of Immaterialism, but I think he's faithfully working out what Smith said, but look at that. Matter, spirit, equal duration, both are self-existent.

So, God can't be self-existent in any real meaning sense, even though in Christianity is the only thing that's self-existent. Here, matter and spirit are, but it's not really God. Yeah. You know, that kind of brings up this interesting point, too, that I never considered. But I think just talking to you brings all this stuff to the forefront of my head.

You know, Paul mentioned this earlier, but the one who gave us agency in Mormonism is God. And if we're all eternal, but then God gave us agency, then that means we didn't have agency. which means that that law, that eternal law, did not give it to us And that means that God was going against the law, and it was actually Satan. who was promoting The law. It was Satan.

One thing I wanted to point out, too, is. In the beginning of the debate, who said that material has to precede immaterial. Because God has to be a physical being to create. Spirit or anything else. But then when you go towards the end of the debate and we're talking about eternal law.

He says that the immaterial, the eternal law, has to precede God, which is the material.

So it's kind of like we were talking about vocab earlier. How do you reconcile these two arguments? Because he was saying you have to have a thinker before you can have the thought. But now he's saying the thoughts have to always exist prior to the thinker ever coming around on the scene. And he's big in his previous debates at criticizing.

Christianity's conception of God as a mere idea. Mm-hmm. The thought before that sounds like you got an idea at jump. And all worldview systems at bottom are mental. or physical, mental or material, you could say.

When I say mental, I don't mean like a brain out there. I mean, like, it's like at bottom, that's one way we could talk about God. You know what I'm saying? God of the Bible, as at bottom, it's mental, you know, disembodied mind. Not that that's all that God is, but saying not physical.

But Mormonism seems like it's, well, it's physical, but then you look at this other stuff. And it's like, well, wait, actually. That's the contradiction at the very root of it. It's quite amazing.

So that's what I'm saying. I'd like to see more on this because a lot of people have caught Mormons up, I think, on sort of the problem they have with the infinite regress of their gods. I was talking to the about this the other day with a. uh Twitter handle uh guy, LDS Philosophy is his Twitter handle. And he actually said.

Sure. He was talking about one of the Mormon philosophers involved with BIU and said, if we would just let him loose, he could solve all of theism's problems. And I think he was kind of joking, but he's also kind of serious. Like this Mormon philosopher could solve all of the problems of theism. And I tweeted back.

First you should so yeah, he should start with the problem of infinite regress with your God. Which I thought was hilarious. I was enjoying myself. Start there. Start with that theistic problem that you have.

And he's like, it's been solved. And link me to some papers. And I'm like, these guys, man.

Solved thing, easy, check, done. We got our infinite regress problem taken care of. No, no, it's endemic. But it's kind of funny. He's a smart guy.

This Twitter handle guy is a smart guy. You know what I mean?

But we all know there's lots of very intelligent, you know. LDS members and stuff like that.

So they can definitely uh you know Speak on these things, but yeah, I agree. We're problematic at the root of the system. I mean, there's philosophical questions that Christians are still trying to deal with.

So it's not the fact that they exist and we can't answer them perfectly that. necessarily makes LDS theology Incorrect, but it's when you take all of it in its totality and compare it to scripture, that's when you really see the contradictions.

So, yeah, it's that's I agree with you. That is something that needs to be talked about more and debated more with LDS is showing just the foundations of existence. The foundation of, you know, what is spirit? Like you were talking about the light of Christ. That's kind of what they equate with.

the omnipresent essence of God. They have this problem with God being omnipresent, but then they say, well, it's the light of Christ that's everywhere that gives light to all beings, that holds all the universe together. And so it's kind of like they give a title. For something that Christians believe to make it make sense, because they're like, we still have to have God be a man like me. But we still need these other things, so we're going to squeeze this idea of the light of Christ.

To fulfill that need of that passage, you know what I mean?

So it's kind of like patchwork theology, if you want to think about it that way.

Well, you know, it's like the force. The force, it binds us and penetrates us and holds the universe together. Pretty much. Yeah. Yeah.

So, um Yeah, this has been great. Really appreciate you coming on. Do you have any other final comments or things you want to talk about, or a final message to our Latter-day Saint listeners or Christian friends that may be listening? Yeah. Um You know There are a lot of good resources in this area.

You know, like you look at all the stuff Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson, those guys have done MRM, Mormonism, and Research Ministry. Look at the YouTube channel, God Loves Mormons. You see all the stuff the Tanners did. You know, there's a lot of good stuff, but we've also seen that. Basically, the folks at BYU aren't sleeping.

And so they're putting out all these papers. You know, they may have a small cadre of people putting out all these papers, doing all this stuff. And some of the kind of new generation of, taking to the internet style LDS apologists have grabbed Popularized version of these arguments, and it's sort of new components in the conversation to discuss, you know, like some of these new proofs. They'll say they have for the Book of Mormon and geography.

Some of these new ones, I don't think, have really been fully. dealt with like some of the old stuff.

So it's interesting in this Essentially, centuries in a manner speaking, going on, centuries, long debate. There are new things to discuss, and part of it is because.

Well the such the changing nature. of LDS, much like their god. Yeah, and it's it's really hard for Christians who don't come from an LDS background to really go into apologetics. It's like if you really want to be an apologist for Latter-day Saints, You've got to dive in deep. There's a lot of stuff to learn.

Um Well, the way that James White put it is he he thinks that LDS theology is like really not deep in the sense of you know like one doctrine you have to know really well. There's a lot of breadth to LDS theology. There's a lot of stuff you have to know. Um There's a lot of terminology differences, so yeah, there's just so much resources you have to understand, even just to get into LDS apologetics, and it's changing so much every day. Like, I see LDS using.

apologetic arguments that I never would have believed. You know, I was. I kind of call myself a McConkieite when I was a Latter-day Saint. You know, I drew a line in the sand. I said, here's where we are, here's where Christianity is.

We're part of the Church of the Lamb. You're part of the church of the great and abominable church of the devil. And I see so much blurring the lines now: like, well, we're all Christian. I even have a friend who's also a former Latter-day Saint. She was talking to missionaries the other day.

She said they told her we're just another Christian denomination. They actually used that terminology.

So, it's it's everything is changing so much.

So, like you said, I agree that we have to we have to keep up to date because I didn't even leave the church that long ago. I resigned in 2017. You're already, you're already online. Exactly. I got to keep up to date.

Yeah, McConkey said in Mormon Doctrine: believers in the doctrines of modern Christendom will reap damnation to their souls. In Mormon Doctrine, page 177 in 1966 edition.

So, yeah, that was you back then, Matthew. That was me. I mean, they're not following the eternal law. That's why. Yeah, I mean apparently even God has to follow.

Yeah. I've even heard people say, Yeah, God could sin and he could be removed from heaven, you know, things like that. I was like, What? I never would have said that stuff was Latter-day Saints.

So, yeah, we as Christians, we really do need to. Step up our game, and even us, you know, I can get complacent and say, Oh, I know enough. I lived, I was at LDS for 20 years. But we really need to keep up to date.

So yeah, it's a great suggestion.

So this is where you can plug yourself or any projects you're doing. Where can people find you on YouTube? Do you have any other platforms where people can find you, podcasts or things like that? Or any exciting projects coming up? You know, youtube.com slash uh vocab malone.

And then where did that... I had a list of all these debates I was doing coming up here at the end of October, and now I don't know where I put it, but well, I don't know where it went, but. Um The last week of October, man, I've got like quite a few on some different channels. And I'll announce them on my social media and stuff. I'm going to be debating the Hebrew Islight on Sola Fidei.

I'm going to be uh Debate in another Hebrews light on the doctrine of the Trinity. I'll maybe be in another Hebrews light on how to interpret Acts 26, where Paul speaks before Agrippa. And uh there's some other ones we're working on too, so. Uh uh a lot a lot going on and and uh By the time this airs, I would have already debated a Hebrew light on uh the question of this 400-year prophecy that some of them hold.

So uh basically Over the next couple of weeks, I'm basically doing a lot of debates on different YouTube debate league channels, trying to get in. I'm not going to do those forever. Keep on, you know, but it's kind of the season of debating right now.

So if they want to keep in touch or watch those debates, could they you know get information from your YouTube channel on that or where to find that or how would they? I'll post some information there and then like on Instagram and Twitter. Both just at Vocab Malone and then S at Street Apologist, both those. You'll be able to get updates and stuff, yeah.

Okay, great. Well, I'll be the first to really thank you very much, Vocap, for staying. I know we kind of said about an hour and a half, but it's been almost two hours.

So, we really appreciate the time you set aside to talk to us tonight. We really enjoyed the conversation. I really enjoyed the debate. I agree with Paul. I think it was really good, and I think it's a good resource.

I think Christians should really listen to it, and I think our Latter-day Saint friends should listen to it also and examine the arguments. and really think critically on what was said. And um Compare it to what Scripture says, because I think that can be a real blessing and it can really help us to know what God has revealed about Himself and how the Athanasian Creed agrees with that.

So, thank you again for coming on. Amen. Thank you. We thank you for tuning in to this episode of the Outer Brightness Podcast. We'd love to hear from you.

Please visit the Outer 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, and we would appreciate it if you give the page a like. We also have an Outer Brightness group on Facebook where you can join and interact with us and others as we discuss the podcast, past episodes, and suggestions for future episodes, etc. You can also send us an email at outerbrightness at gmail.com. We hope to hear from you soon.

You can subscribe to the Outer Brightness Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Cast Box, Google Podcasts, Pocket Cast, Podbean, Spotify, and Stitcher. Also you can check out our new YouTube channel and if you like it, be sure to lay hands on that subscribe 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 ex-Mormon apologist at fromwatertowine.org, where he blogs and sometimes Paul and Matthew do as well. Music for the Outer Brightness podcast is graciously provided by the talented Brianna Flournoy and by Adams Rode.

Learn more about Adams Road by visiting their ministry page at adamsroadministry.com. Stay bright, Fireflies. Lord, to whom shall we go? You have The way Words of eternal life. And we Yeah, please.

They have come to know That you are. The Holy One of God, the world made fresh, the risen Son. Heaven and earth will pass away, but the word of the Lord endures forever. All of this world is indeed. But the word of our God through ages remain, Lord, you promised that we, as your church, would remain upon this rock and the gates of hell.

Will not prevail against us because you have power to keep your word unspoken in purity. Heaven and earth will pass away, but the word of the Lord endures forever. All this world is indecay, but the word of our God through ages remain as the rain calls down from heaven and waters the earth, bringing it light.

So the word that goes out from your mouth will waters eternal. Empty, but does what you desire, Lord. We hear your word and believe in you. Heaven and earth will pass away, but the word of our Lord endures forever. All this world is in decay, but the word of our God through ages remain of God remains.
Whisper: parakeet / 2025-07-10 06:24:36 / 2025-07-10 06:27:32 / 3

Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime