Are Mormons Christian?, Pt. 1 (LDS Gospel Topics Essays Series)

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 satisfied. Hey, Fireflies, welcome back to Outer Brightness. This is part two of the episode in which Matthew, the nuclear Calvinist, and I, the Apostate Paul, discuss. The Gospel Topics essay, Are Mormons Christian? In part one, we discuss the introductory section of the article as well as the first main sections.

Titled Latter-day Saints Do Not Accept the Creeds of Post-New Testament Christianity. In this part of the episode, part two, we'll be discussing the sections titled Latter-day Saints Believe in a Restored Christianity, Latter-day Saints Believe in an Open Canon, and conclusion.

So hope you enjoy this episode and thanks for listening. Give us a like and subscribe on your favorite podcast app. Go to our YouTube channel and give us a like and subscribe there. Hit the notification button. Again, welcome and we hope you enjoy the conversation.

Would you like me to go on the second section?

Sorry, the second section.

Well, I guess the second point. Third section. What's that? All right.

Sounds good.

Okay, Latter-day Saints believe in a restored Christianity. Another premise used in arguing that Latter-day Saints are not Christians is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not descend from the traditional line of today's Christian churches. Latter-day Saints are not Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant. Latter-day Saints believe that by ministering of angels to Joseph Smith, priesthood authority to act in God's name was returned or brought back to earth. This is the restored, not a reformed, Church of Jesus Christ.

The Latter-day Saint belief in a restored Christianity helps explain why so many Latter-day Saints from the 1830s to the present have converted from other Christian denominations. These converts did not and do not perceive themselves as leaving the Christian fold. They are simply grateful to learn about and become part of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, which they believe offers the fullness of the Lord's gospel, a more complete and rich Christian church, spiritually, organizationally, and doctrinally. Members of creedal churches often mistakenly assume that all Christians have always agreed and must agree on a historically static, monolithic collection of beliefs. As many scholars have acknowledged, however, Christians have vigorously disagreed about virtually every issue of theology and practice throughout the centuries, leading to the creation of a multitude of Christian denominations.

Although the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differs from that of the many creedal Christian churches, it is consistent with early Christianity. One who sincerely loves, worships, and follows Christ should be free to claim his or her understanding of the doctrine according to the dictates of his or her conscience without being branded as non-Christian.

So there's a lot in that section.

So I have some thoughts. But what about you, Paul? I'll let you go first. Yeah. I think the first thing I would say is that I think that Latter-day Saints should recognize and understand that the anti-creedal approach that they take is the same anti-credal approach taken by other restorationist movements that grew up around Joseph Smith and in which he was also swimming.

So Where the paragraph says that members of creedal churches often mistakenly assume that all Christians have always agreed and must agree on a historically static monolithic collection of beliefs. To that, I would say. Maybe some do. But the the restorationist Groups that were in the Midwest where Joseph Smith was. Was Preaching and working on his ministry.

They said things like, Trying to come up with a quote from Alexander Campbell. I may not come up with an exact quote, just a paraphrase. But basically, the idea that he put forward was that So when they say no creed but Christ. Early Restorationist leaders like Alexander Campbell weren't necessarily fully anti-creedal, but they would have said something very similar to what the last sentence of the last paragraph in this essay says, which is basically, you know, that they would accept as a brother someone who doesn't have that full understanding of the Trinity or other early Christian creeds and councils. They would rather still fellowship with that person as a Christian if that person has.

You know, if that person has a belief in Jesus Christ and they have the fruits of the Spirit evident in their lives, and so these kinds of ideas come from the broader Restorationist movement, of which Latter-day Saint belief and practice is just one. Variety. I know I've said that previously tonight, but I'll point it out again here because I think it's important for Latter-day Saints to have that historical perspective. Because if you're going to say that, well, members of creedal churches don't have the historical perspective that Christianity has not been a static monolithic collection of beliefs, while there is some truth to that. There have always been groups of people within the broader tent of Christianity who have rejected aspects of creedal Christianity.

You know, Protestants accept the first seven ecumenical councils, as do Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic.

So there is a unity of belief in terms of the first seven ecumenical councils. But if Latter-day Saints are going to say, you know, creedal Christians lack historical Context, then I just want to point out that Latter-day Saints should have historical context for the source of their beliefs, for the source of their approach to the creeds. And that comes out of that restorationist movement. Yeah, lots of great points. I wanted to bring up too in the previous section, but it also applies here: that we had interviewed Vocabulon a while ago, and it was right after he had a debate about the Athanasian Creed specifically with the Latter-day Saint.

And he said that. They went through the various creeds. to talk about it, to see which ones they would debate about. And the Latter-day Saint admitted that they agree with the wording of the Apostles' Creed, that they have no problem with it. And basically, with most of the Nicene Creed, they had no problem with it either.

So they're like, okay, well, that's not much of a debate if we agree on most of it.

So that's why they chose the Athanasian Creed, because they're very hard, distinctive. Teachings there that LDS would disagree with.

So I find that interesting that, you know, when In Joseph Smith's history, he wrote that God told him that all their creeds, all the creeds of Christianity were an abomination. Yeah, most LDS today would have no problem affirming the Apostles' Creed.

So I just think that's kind of fascinating, you know, that all the creeds are an abomination, except for that one. Anyways, it's kind of a sad comment. But uh yeah, so going back to the section. but I believe it's a restored Christianity. It's yeah, it's one thing I wanted to bring up was that this focus on authority, you know, there's this kind of real focus that you need this apostolic succession, which is kind of a big thing also in Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and some parts of Protestantism too that kind of focus on that.

Like I know Anglicanism kind of talks a lot about succession. But so LDS say, like you said, they believe that. the authority was completely lost. From the beginning. Um And that this is the reason why.

And so it started off, like you said, with the priesthood authority being lost, and then that led to doctrinal corruption. Over time and the loss of truths. And then, once the authority was restored and prophecy returned to Joseph Smith and others, then that doctrine started coming back. But one thing that I really like to point out in scripture is that it's not just the words of Jesus, where he promised that the gates of Hades would not prevail against his church in Matthew 18, but I really love Jude, the way that he describes it.

So some Jude, only one chapter. I think it's for Three. Yep.

So Jude is, he's kind of giving warnings. He's speaking to the Christian church. He says, to those who are accalled, believed in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ. May mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you. Verse 3: Beloved, while I was making every effort to write to you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you, appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith.

That was once for all time handed down to the saints.

So if the faith is once for all time handed to the saints. That doesn't sound like he's anticipating that this is ever going to be lost. You know, we see in Paul's writings. LDS will appeal to those, you know, talking about falling away, saying that all of the apostles and everyone was just, you know, anticipating this time that was not too far away where the faith would just be gone from the earth. Jude is like completely on the opposite page.

If you're going to use those quotes from Paul, then you would have to say that Paul has an issue with Jude, because Jude is saying that the faith is once for all handed down. to them for all time.

So I see an issue with this idea that the LDS Church is restored, you know, that that they that and also I don't see a connection between lost authority and lost doctrine. You know, that that seems kind of like a that seems like a presuppositional argumentation. You know, they it's based on Joseph Smith Slater's teachings that he says. You know, we see this corruption indoctrine supposedly. And it was because they lost this priesthood authority.

But we don't really see people worried about this priesthood authority being lost, supposedly in the early church. You'd think that if there was this. Priesthood authority that was so central, so important, and that they needed apostles. You think there'd be some Christian author that would be just completely distraught, and he would be writing about, we have no more apostles, you know, all is lost, all is lost. We don't see anything like that.

We see them appealing to the scriptures. We see in scripture itself that Paul. Paul gives directions for how to replace elders and deacons. And you know, there's some that would say the bishops are distinct from elders, but basically, bishops, elders, deacons, these are the ones, the requirements and the qualifications to replace them with new. Bishops, elders, and deacons.

We don't see anything like that for apostles and prophets. We don't see a list of requirements to call new prophets and apostles or to replace them.

So the idea is that he gave instructions for how the church was to be continued throughout time. That's what their letters were about. And so, since he didn't direct them on how to call new apostles and prophets, it seems to me that he's saying pretty clearly that. That's not a that's not an office that's to continue perpetually.

So there's just a lot of issues, I think, with the LDS position on you know the restoration and complete apostasy from the early church.

So, yeah.

So, do you have any comments about that or things you would correct or anything to add to that? Uh, add to actually. Um, so let me just make a few notes so I don't lose my train of thought here. Um, okay.

So, the first thing I wanted to comment on, based on what you said, was you brought up the topic of apostolic succession and that Latter-day Saints kind of adopt that as an important thing that needs to happen within the church. Um, and and you know, there is an argument to be made uh from the book of Acts that you know they replaced uh Judas with Matthias. Um, there was a process that they did to do that, um, and so but you know, you don't, but then you have the apostle Paul, uh, who's also an apostle and argues, am I not an apostle? Uh, so you you um you don't you see. See another apostle named, but you don't see another succession moment happening, right?

Where he's brought into the quorum of the 12, so to speak, which Latter-day Saints kind of read back onto the New Testament.

So there's that. But what I want to say about that really is that, you know, apostolic succession, that's a big argument that comes into play once you have kind of a split between East and West. uh in christianity you have the eastern orthodox and you have the roman catholics And you have the arguments for Peter being the first Pope, the Bishop of Rome, the See of Rome being preeminent, all of those kinds of arguments that come about post-schism. And what's interesting about that is that the Latter-day Saints kind of adopt this idea, right, of apostolic succession having to be there. But where do they get that idea?

You kind of have this authority question that happens as a result of the Protestant Reformation, right? If you're going to, if the reformers are going to then step outside, which they didn't initially wanted to do, they wanted to reform the church. But if they're going to step outside and actually start forming churches and bodies of believers that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church and not in communion with them, then you have a question of authority, which Latter-day Saints like to Kind of pounce on that and make use of that in their argumentation against Protestants. Oh, you don't have authority. Even it's not John Wesley.

What's John Wesley's brother's name? He has a famous quote that Latter-day Saints like to use about, you know, who, if somebody laid hands on somebody, then who laid hands on him or something like that, right? And Latter-day Saints like to use that quote because they're like, see, even the Protestant reformers could recognize that there was an authority issue going on, you know, but so they're basically, though, they're adopting, like I said, they're adopting this idea of the importance of apostolic succession from Roman Catholicism. And so if you're going to do that, you just need to recognize the historical context in which Latter-day Saint history and doctrine and authority sits, right? It sits right squarely in the middle of trying to answer that question.

Well, what are we going to do about? Authority in this Protestant Reformation that's now several hundred years old.

So that's one point I wanted to make. But then The other thing I wanted to say is that one of the arguments that Latter-day Saints make for Joseph Smith, specifically being a prophet. is that He addresses issues and questions that were burning in his day among the Christian world, right, in America. Alexander Campbell calls this out in his Critique of the Book of Mormon, that he answers every question that was. debated on the American frontier.

Among Christians. And so Latter-day Saints will point to that and say, see, that's the reason why we need a modern prophet. That's why Joseph Smith was called, because you need someone to address those. Issues. You need someone to address the questions that are right in front of people.

And they use that as evidence for Smith's calling and authority.

So Because he answers the questions, therefore he's a prophet.

Okay. What I would say to that is the early church fathers. we're doing the same thing, right? They were attempting to answer the questions that came up from groups of Greek philosophers, groups of people who were mixing Greek philosophy and Christian teachings, like the Gnostics.

So they're answering questions that are burning in their day, and they're doing them in kind of innovative ways.

So if that makes Joseph Smith a prophet. Then, what do you say about the early church fathers? Latter-day Saints agree with Christians, agree with evangelicals and Protestants that the early church fathers are not inspired. They're not writing scripture in their writings, but they're doing some very, some very similar things to what Joseph Smith is doing. And you use that argument to say that he was a prophet.

So that's why I would just say that's not a very strong argument. Yeah, they would probably answer that by saying, well, it goes back to the denomination argument. You know, well, nobody could really agree 100% on everything.

So that's why I need a profit to settle everything. And it kind of reminds me a little bit of like the joke where, you know, as engineers and machinists and mechanics, you know, you have the problem where you've got 15 different standards of measurement and, And you know, tooling and numbering and everything like that.

So, what's the solution?

Well, invent a 15th system of measurement and tooling number.

So um So that's kind of what Joseph Smith did: he didn't pick which one of them was right. He's like, well, you're all wrong.

So I'm going to give you the right way.

Well, and that's. You know, to that point, I've made that argument to Latter-day Saints before, where I've said, okay. You say you need a profit. You need someone to be the authority to say, okay, these are the different options. This is the one that's true.

Right. And you revere Joseph Smith for doing that. And yet, at the same time, you try to pillory Constantine for calling a council. And you start to say, oh, he shouldn't have done that. He didn't have the authority to do that.

He didn't have the authority to say, here's these different options. This one's true.

Well, he didn't say that, did he? That the council voted, but the council of bishops voted. But you see what I'm saying, right? Like, on the one hand, you want to argue that that. That doing that, saying this is the true one, gives Joseph Smith some special status, but you also want to argue that.

Constantine and the bishops shouldn't have come together to try to do that. It doesn't make sense. Right. So, kind of going back to. The title of the the um The topic I wanted to ask you.

So, maybe go back to the first section.

So, Or the first point that this article makes, you know, that they do not accept the creeds, confessions, and formulations of post-New Testament Christianity. Maybe just to be clear. Uh so does Not accepting the creeds, confessions, and formulations of post-New Testament Christianity, does that automatically make the LDS Church not Christian by our measures? What do you think about that? See, I struggle with that question because.

And this was a point I was going to make earlier, but didn't, but I'll make it now. Latter-day Saints, when you ask them, you know, or when the question comes up, are Mormons or are Latter-day Saints Christian? I get it's a heart issue, it's an identity issue. I have totally been there. I've talked often about how I wrote an email to my mother-in-law.

Pre-Easter, the first Easter that we were going to spend together, right before Angela and I got married. And I. Argued my case. That I am a Christian and we can celebrate Easter and worship Jesus Christ and enjoy the joy and the hope of the resurrection together.

So I get where Latter-day Saints come from with this, but the question isn't: is a church Christian? And I know that that argument comes up a lot, right? With regards to Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestants, you know, various forms of Protestantism, Seventh-day Adventists, that kind of thing. Yes, the question can come up whether a church's teachings uh fall within the You know. Broader set of Orthodox Christian belief, right, which would include the seven ecumenical councils and the creeds and that kind of thing.

So, that question can come up. But this essay is asking a different question. This essay is asking: Are Mormons Christian? Right? And that's an individual matter.

And I think Latter-day Saints would agree with that. If they believe the Book of Mormon, have you experienced that mighty change of heart? Right, as is said in Alma five.

So that's the heart issue. Are you individually? A Christian? Are you individually born again? Have you been born of God?

Have you been born from above? And so I do have sympathies for Latter-day Saints who feel this as a heart issue. What I would say to those Latter-day Saints, though, is. Stop looking at as a stop looking at it as a church issue. Right.

Because A church doesn't make someone a Christian, right? Absolutely correct theology, biblical theology, doesn't make someone a Christian, okay? What makes someone a Christian is whether or not they've been born again, and so that's what I would say there. Do you want to change? Jump in there with anything, Matthew, before I kind of move on to something else?

Yeah, that was a good point, Dave. I hadn't really thought about the way they worded it because the first point says. Latter-day Saints do not accept the creeds, confessions, and formulations. And so does the third point. It says Latter-day Saints do not believe.

But then the second one appeals to the church itself. The church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not descend to the historical line of traditional Christianity.

So it's almost like the first and third points are talking about what Latter-day Saints, the people, Do or do not believe. The second part is talking about the organization itself.

So I hadn't really picked up on that distinction, but that's interesting. I'm glad you brought that up. Yeah, I would agree. I would agree on the point that being part of a church or the church that you belong to does not automatically make you a Christian. I think, and you would also agree, I believe, that just having the right set of ideas or knowledge or, you know, understanding of the Bible alone is not enough.

Kind of what you're saying, it's about the heart. At the same time, for those who do have a true faith, they should and will, you know, either accept true, you know, essential doctrines or not reject them outright.

So that's why we focus so much on doctrine, because if someone continues To reject an essential truth of Christianity. That is kind of like an outward expression. Of you know, where their heart is, you know, like where it says, you know, you know, um. Talking about prophets, you know, Christ said, judge them by their fruits.

Well, LDS will say, Well, we do good things, we do charity, we help people. And I say, Yeah, that's great. But it's not just, you know, how nice and loving you are to people. It shows whether you're a Christian. You know, part of what you teach and believe is also a fruit, you know, of your salvation.

So if you're teaching a false doctrine that's an essential, you know, that goes against essentials, that's also a demonstration of one's fruit.

So yeah, I don't, do you have any comments on that? Yeah, I agree with what you're saying there. I do think that doctrine is important. I hope nobody took from what I said about it being a heart issue that doctrine isn't important. I think you made a really good point about if someone continues to reject the doctrines of the Christian faith, it is a reflection of where their heart is.

Another point I would like to make on this, because of the wording here, where it kind of shifts to the LDS church being a Christian organization versus an individual matter of what beliefs are.

So Latter-day Saints If you take their doctrine of exclusive priesthood authority really seriously, they do not believe that Christians are Christians because they have not been baptized or had or received the other ordinances. Uh, by proper priest's authority, as far as I know, that is still the teaching of the LDS church.

So, um, you know, it's just kind of interesting that there's this essay asking the question: Are Mormons Christian? Um, but You know, the reality of Latter-day Saint teaching is that you and me, Matthew, and other Christians we know. Every other Christian who's not a Mormon, by their doctrine, are not saved. And that's why they do vicarious. ordinances for the dead in the temple in the temples because Everyone has to receive those ordinances.

By proper priesthood authority, in order to be, according to Latter-day Saint teaching, part of the Church of the Lamb. Right, in the church of the firstborn. And so I wanted to make that point because. You know, they also have the teaching of three different levels of heaven. And there are people who will be relegated to what's called the terrestrial kingdom.

It's not the highest level of heaven where God the Father resides. And so the people in the terrestrial kingdom, they won't have the presence of the Father. And so they're not fully Christian, right? They're either people who did not receive the ordinances, they were blinded by the craftiness of men, as LDS scripture says. Or there are people who were not valiant in their testimony of Jesus Christ.

So You know, Latter-day Saints While I get that, you know, there's a there's this heart issue, there's this identity issue going on where they want to be seen as Christian, they also place everyone else outside of What is their idea of truly Christian is.

So, whereas, you know, the Restorationist. Tradition I belong to would say, We're not the only Christians, we're Christians only. Latter-day Saints say, in effect, we are the only Christians, and you have to accept our ordinances to be one, too. Quite a big difference there. I'm losing my train of thought.

There was something else I wanted to touch on, but jump in here and I'll try to find what I was thinking of. Yeah, I would say that I think most LDS that we talk to. They would say that anyone who believes in Jesus is a Christian. And I think they kind of have to hold that position because, like you were saying, otherwise, if you start putting like doctrinal stipulations on what it means to follow and love Jesus, then they have to start admitting, okay, well, yeah, maybe this person's not a Christian. That one's not a Christian.

And then we have to start asking, well, who has the authority to claim what, you know, what determines what is Christian doctrine, what is not, what is essential, what is not. And, you know, once we start going down that road, then you start having to go to the Bible and seeing there are certain truths that Jesus claimed about himself, you know, that it says about itself. There's only one God, there's none before, none after him, none that are even like him. And so, so yeah, I think they would say most LES would say that anyone who just believes in Jesus can be Christian, but like you said, yeah. You you cannot inherit eternal life without these ordinances.

The LDS ordinances in our baptisms, it's still listed in their Doctrine and Covenants that. Baptism by someone who does not have this authority is a quote unquote dead work. And so it does nothing for us. Even Roman Catholics today, you know, post-Vatican II would actually say that we are separated brethren, quote unquote.

So our baptisms actually do count, even though it's not done by a Roman Catholic priest. The fact that it's done in the Trinitarian formula. By one who believes in Christ, that counts. That's good enough for them.

So it's kind of interesting that the Roman Catholic Church is more accepting of non-Catholics as Christians in terms of the efficacy of their baptism than the LDS Church still hasn't changed their view on that. I think even Community of Christ, which is a reorganized LDS Church, I think even they might accept, I think, yeah, actually now that I'm thinking about it, they do. They do accept baptisms from other faith traditions as valid.

So whether you're Latter-day Saint or Protestant, if you wanted to join Community of Christ, if you're already baptized by one of them, then you don't need to be baptized again, which is interesting. Yeah, yeah, thank you for that. I'm glad you went there because that's kind of where I was. I was leading to is this idea that you know, often when this question comes up, Latter-day Saints will pull the dictionary definition of Christian, you know, someone who believes in and is a follower of Jesus Christ, right? And you know, can it be that simple?

Sure. It can, but like you were saying, there are Orthodox. Teachings of the Christian faith that flow from scripture. And when you Reject those, it shows. Your heart, and it also shows that you are not willing to align with biblical teaching.

So, yeah, so there's this idea of the dictionary definition of Christian. And like I said earlier, it's really a hard issue. Have you been born again? And that will be evident in your life. But again, like you were saying, Latter-day Saints would say, Oh, anybody who believes in Jesus Christ is a Christian.

But there will be, according to LDS teaching, there will be people who believe in Jesus Christ. Who are only judged worthy of the terrestrial kingdom rather than the celestial kingdom because they didn't accept the ordinances or because they weren't valiant in the testimony of Jesus, which. LDS leaders have said has to do with obedience, right?

So they weren't fully obedient. And so what you have here is when you really start to, as you were saying, get down to brass tacks and ask questions about doctrine and teaching. Then, what you have here is an LDS view of heaven, where someone who has believed in Jesus. Has not had their sins fully forgiven. And does not have peace with God, fully living with the Father, because they were not obedient enough.

And so it's a different, when you really get into talking about the doctrine, you start to realize it's a different gospel than what is taught in the Bible. And so, um, What I would say again is that a church does not save you. A church does not make you a Christian. Being a member of any church doesn't make you a Christian. Being born again does, according to the Bible.

So, yeah, I think I'm done on that. Yeah, good points. And I would be curious to know how many LDS would read this line where it says: One who sincerely loves, worships, and follows Christ should be free to claim his or her understanding of the doctrine according to the dictates. of his or her conscience without being branded as not Christian. I would be curious to know if they would include the ordinances of the LDS church as part of following Christ sincerely, you know, or if it just means.

Following Christ to the best of your knowledge or to the best of your conscience or something like that. You know, I don't know. It'd be interesting to kind of talk to them and see what they think about that. Yeah. And, you know, would they be willing to go so far as to say, you know, as long as you sincerely believe in Jesus Christ, you're free to believe whatever you want according to the dictates of your own conscience?

Is that really what Latter-day Saints believe? You know, their article of faith says that, but is that more of a defense or is that an opportunity for Latter-day Saints to believe anything they want? I don't think it's true that Latter-day Saints can believe anything that they want. Maybe it is. They definitely can't teach anything that they want.

But is it necessary to believe? The truth about the nature of God. The lectures on faith, which were part, which were the doctrine part of the doctrine of covenants, they do say that it's important to understand the true nature of God. And as a Latter-day Saint, I would have argued that the Latter-day Saint understanding of God is an embodied, exalted man perfected and glorified. Is a really important doctrine.

And I think most Latter-day Saints would argue that it is a really important doctrine. We see them arguing all the time that, and even in this essay, right, that it's really important to understand that to have a true understanding of the nature of the Godhead. They believe that they don't believe that you or I can, or any other Latter-day Saint any Latter-day Saint can believe whatever they want about the Godhead. They teach their doctrine as important.

So it seems a little bit disingenuous to me to try to suggest that Christians should not take a firm stand on doctrine, but Latter-day Saints can. Yeah. Yeah. It's yeah. And it's when you talked about the great apostasy by Talmadge, in that source, and as well as Joseph Smith himself, they both basically referred to the Trinity as like a false God, just a totally different God.

Joseph Smith said that three and one would make a great monster or a giant.

So I mean, I don't think, I don't know how he could say that, you know, and also in the Wentworth letter, he they asked him if non-Latter-day Saints would be damned, and he said yes. And so maybe his view changed over time, you know, where he kind of became more universalist. I don't know, but there were more hard line. Lions drawn in the sand, saying that if you worship this God, this trinity, That you're worshiping a different God. And so, you know, and Gordon B.

Hinckley recently in the 90s, you know, said that.

Well, relatively recently, said that, you know, that there is some, there is some accuracy to the fact that LDS worship a different Jesus than the historic Christianity.

So, but it seems more nowadays that LDS would say that we just have different views of the same God or of. the same genus so I don't know, it gets a little bit mushy. All right, shall we go on to the next section? Uh yeah, whose turn is it? I forgot.

It's fine.

Okay, sure. You're listening to Outer Brightness, a podcast for post-Mormons who are drawn by God to walk with Jesus rather than turn away. Outer brightness, outer brightness, outer brightness. There's no weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth here. We were all born and raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, more commonly referred to as the Mormon faith.

All of us have left that religion and have been drawn to faith in Jesus Christ based on biblical teachings. The name of our podcast, Outer Brightness, reflects John 1:9, which calls Jesus the true light which gives light to everyone. We have found life beyond Mormonism to be brighter than we were told it would be, and the light we have is not our own. It comes to us from without. Thus, Outer Brightness.

Our purpose is to share our journeys of faith and what God has done in drawing us to His Son. We have conversations about all aspects of that transition, the fears, challenges, joys, and everything in between. We're glad you found us, and we hope you'll stick around.

So, Latter-day Saints believe in an open canon. The third justification argued to label Latter-day Saints as non-Christian has to do with their belief in an open scriptural canon. For those making this argument, to be a Christian means to assent to the principle of sola scriptura or to the self-sufficiency of the Bible. But to claim that the Bible is the sole and final word of God, more specifically, the final written word of God, is to claim more for the Bible than it claims for itself.

Nowhere does the Bible proclaim that all revelations from God would be gathered into a single volume to be forever closed and that no further scriptural revelation could be received. Moreover, Not all Christian churches are certain that Christianity must be defined by commitment to a closed canon. In truth, the argument for exclusion by closed canon appears to be used selectively to exclude Latter-day Saints. From being called Christian. No branch of Christianity limits itself entirely to the biblical text in making doctrinal decisions and in applying biblical principles.

Roman Catholics, for example, turned to church tradition and the magisterium, meaning teachers, including popes and councils, for answers. Protestants, particularly evangelicals, turned to linguists and scripture scholars for their answers, as well as to post-New Testament church councils and creeds. For many Christians, these councils and creeds are every bit as canonical as the Bible itself. To establish doctrine and to understand the biblical text, Latter-day Saints turned to living prophets into additional books of scripture, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. Together with the Old and New Testaments, the Book of Mormon supports an unequivocal testimony of Jesus Christ.

One passage says that the Book of Mormon shall establish the truth of the Bible and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people that the Lamb of God is the Son of the eternal Father and the Savior of the world, and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved. In its more than 6,000 verses, the Book of Mormon refers to Jesus Christ almost 4,000 times and by over 100 different names, Jehovah, Emmanuel, Holy Messiah, Lamb of God, Redeemer of Israel, and so on. The Book of Mormon is indeed another testament of Jesus Christ, as its title page proclaims. Matthew. Your thoughts on this section.

Yeah, so I wouldn't say that having an open canon in and of itself automatically, or believing that there's an open canon, automatically makes someone not a Christian. Or a church, not a Christian church.

So I don't know. It does appeal to a lot of things that we wouldn't agree with. We're not Roman Catholics, so I know we wouldn't really use an appeal to authority to say that, well, this is what the church has said. And so you just have to believe it, because if you don't believe it, then you're not part of the church kind of thing.

So we wouldn't use those kind of appeals to authority. I would say. In terms of the creeds and councils, and that goes back to the first point that they brought up in this article, it's not the It's not the acceptance or rejection. Acceptance or rejecting of creeds and councils in and of itself, I would say, that puts you outside of Christianity, but. Are you rejecting essential truths that are contained in those creeds and councils?

And No creed, no council, I would say, is infallible, which is something that I think Orthodox and Roman Catholics would say. They would say that when you know, when God has promised to give the Holy Spirit to the church and the gift of infallibility, Roman Catholics. You know, kind of extend that to the Pope also, not just in councils, but They both agree that. In councils, you know, when the church comes together and they come up with a solution, that's to be, you know, it's agreed upon, then it's to be believed. But Protestants don't really believe the same thing.

You know, we typically believe that councils and creeds can be fallible and they are, you know, they're not infallible in and of themselves.

So they're only true in as far, in as much as they agree with what scripture teaches. And so that's why a lot within the Reformed tradition, we disagree with, we would agree with the pronouncements of the first six ecumenical councils.

So those are the first six, you know, councils that were in church history. We would agree with those councils, but The seventh ecumenical council, which was the second council of Nicaea, which was in let's see the year 787, many of us would disagree with that because part of one of its pronouncements was that it reinstated this use of icons in worship. And it's not just having images of Jesus in the church that was the issue. It's like they would actually, there was a view that icons were kind of a window into heaven. And so, like, by gazing upon an image that could kind of give transport you and give you a means of grace where God could actually pour out grace through the icons and the images to the believer.

And so, even I think even a lot of confessional Lutherans who do use images of Jesus in their churches, they would disagree with a lot of this because they don't see them as means of grace. They see them as maybe teaching tools, something to help put you in the mood, a worshipful mood, but they themselves are not means of grace. That's one council that I think a lot of Protestants will disagree with.

So we don't, just because it's a council, you know, doesn't make it automatically authoritative. whether it lines up with scripture and that's why we reject them because we don't Leave that as lining up with scripture.

So do you have any thoughts on that or anything that you would add to that? Yeah. Yeah, I think that what you're talking about there with icons and the seventh ecumenical council, and that there's an aspect of that that not all Christians would agree with. I think that's true. And it definitely makes sense.

I think that it's definitely more, I mean, it's been part of historical Christianity. You know, you had the iconoclasts, and then you, you. Later on, that same kind of desire not to make use of icons. You find also in the Reformation. And the reformed tradition.

So, yeah, that's good to acknowledge that. And I also like what you. The way you worded that, that it's not the rejection or acceptance of the creeds that makes one Christian or not Christian, or a church Christian or not Christian. It's the rejection of fundamental truths that are biblical truths that are explained within the creeds. Um, so just kind of thoughts on this overall overall thoughts on this section.

Um, I remember having a conversation with uh one of my um professors In seminary over lunch one day, and he was kind of questioning me about the fact that I had been a Latter-day Saint. And he kind of asked me some questions related to this point here of the essay, are You ever he asked me, did I ever think that Latter-day Saints would be accepted as part of the Christian fold? And my answer was along the lines of, well, there would be a lot that they would have to give up, you know. And he was like, Yeah, I think you're right. If you have additional scripture, you're not going to be viewed as part of.

part of the Christian fold. And the reason for that isn't because you have additional scripture. I think, you know. For me, and you can tell me whether you agree, Matthew, but I think some other Christians would agree too. Like, if God decided to give more scripture, And it was clear that he had.

I know I wouldn't be just prone to reject it just because, you know, out of hand, there can't be any new scripture. God can't speak anymore. I don't think, you know, I don't believe that. The way I would put it is: the question isn't, you know, can God or could God speak? Of course he could.

The question is, has he spoken? within the Latter-day Saint faith tradition. And I think there are lots of reasons to believe that he is not. Um And probably most important among those is the inconsistency that you find in. Latter-day Saint teaching and scripture with what you find in.

In the Bible. And I find it interesting because it's almost like the author of this. Essay knows that, knows that there's a big gap. Between what you find in the Book of Mormon and the Bible, and what you find in the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. Because the end of this second, is it the second paragraph?

Yeah, the end of the second paragraph says, to establish doctrine and understand. The biblical text, Latter-day Saints turned to living prophets and to additional books of scripture. The Book of Mormon Doctrine and Covenants appear at Great Price. And then at the beginning of the next paragraph, they shave off. Two-thirds of their cannon.

and set the Book of Mormon itself only aside the Bible. Yeah. which I think is interesting. And I think it points out that the author probably, author or authors probably understands that there's this big gap. That once you start getting into the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, you get into the really unique doctrine.

Of Mormonism and of Joseph Smith that definitely stands outside of the Creeds and Confessions. Yeah, yeah, that's a great point. That's kind of what those are some reflects to what I had too. It's like there are a few things in the Book of Mormon that are very distinctive. It gives a very hard line against those who practice it for baptism, for example.

But, you know, apart from that, it's. A lot of the doctrines are very compatible with the Bible. You know, only one God, you know, God's revealed His Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It doesn't even talk about the father having a body.

So, yeah, I would agree with that. That's that's really interesting. That's a good thing you pointed out. Thanks for that. I also like to continue what I was saying earlier, too.

I want to point out that. It says for many Christians, these councils and creeds are every bit as canonical as the Bible itself.

So, just to make it clear, we don't think that creeds and councils are as canonical as the Bible. We believe that they're subservient to, you know, they're subordinate to the Bible. If they support and teach what the Bible teaches, great, we'll support them. If they don't, then we disagree with them.

So, that's why. You know.

So that's regarding our discussion of like the Senate Ecumenical Council, for an example. Uh, so also, there's a part two that I want to talk about. Uh, the first paragraph about scripture saying it's um the self-sufficiency of the Bible. Um, so it says to claim the Bible is the sole and final word of God, more specifically the final written word of God, is to claim more for the Bible than it claims for itself.

So, I actually kind of agree with that in a sense, because there's nothing that says in there, there will be no more books after this, you know. And it's kind of also a similar thing, like with tongues, you know, the apostolic gifts, you know, tongues and prophecy. There's no verse you can point to that says, There are no more tongues and prophecy. And I say, And to me, I would explain that that's impossible for it to do because the Bible is an inspired book of prophecy.

So, how could you have a book of prophecy that says there's no more prophecy? You know, unless if it were the very last sentence or something, like after this, there's no more, kind of a thing. I don't know. It'd be kind of hard to do that. But in terms of like the sufficiency of the Bible, you know, we turn a lot, a lot of times to 2 Timothy 3:16 through 17, where it says all scriptures God breathes.

Maybe I should just read that, I guess. Just to remind our listeners, and if they want a more in-depth discussion on this, we have our series on what about scripture.

So, 2 Timothy 3, I guess I'll read it from the King James.

So, 16 and 17: all scripture is given by inspiration of God or as God breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for a proof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. And There's a verb there that's, I think it's exartizo, or it's a kind of a conjugation of that verb. And it basically means to be like completed, to be, you know, to have nothing lacking. And so it says that the man of God will be complete and furnished unto good works.

So scripture is sufficient in the sense that, you know, if we're going to be completely, you know, completed in terms of what we need to know for life and happiness to know how to please God, what is there that we need to know that's not in scripture? You know, it's, it's, It's a very short and kind of condensed version of our discussion on scripture, so I'd recommend going to that series. Yeah, I think scripture itself does say that it's sufficient for what we need to know about God and eternal life and to return to live with God. And the gospel is taught there.

So, to say that it's not sufficient is to go against what scripture says itself.

So, yes. It's kind of like how you phrase the question. You know, they phrase it in such a way as: well, the Bible doesn't say there won't be any more Bible, but I think we need to rephrase it in such a sense, we need to phrase the discussion in terms of. Is the Bible lacking anything that we eat? And I don't think it is.

Yeah, yeah, really good points. I'm glad you clarified what we mean by the sufficiency of scripture, because I think that's oftentimes misunderstood by Latter-day Saints. And you see the kind of, I'm going to say that what's set up in that first paragraph is a straw man argument. And, you know, it's unfortunate that in an essay that's meant to Argue that Latter-day Saints are Christians, that you have such strongman arguments included in misrepresenting what Christians actually believe about the Bible and the sufficiency of the Bible.

So I want to touch on a couple of things. First, this point. It's in the second paragraph, I believe. Let me know this section. One, two.

Yep, second paragraph.

So it's talking about the various authorities that different Christians might turn to. Roman Catholics might turn to example, for example, tradition, magisterium, they give that example. Protestants, they say, particularly evangelicals, turn to linguists and scripture scholars for their answers, as well as to post-New Testament church councils and creeds.

So that point there, and then it kind of equates the Roman Catholic view of tradition and magisterium with the Protestant view of, or Authority of linguists and scripture with Mormons looking to prophets, right, and additional books of scripture, it kind of is like. Hey, you all do this kind of thing, we do this kind of thing, kind of false equivalency that's going on here. What I want to say about what it says there about Protestants, particularly evangelicals, turn to linguists and scripture scholars for their answers. Yeah, that's true. And the reason for that is because we want to understand what scripture says, right?

We take seriously the idea that scripture. Was inspired to And breathed out by God through the original authors and in the original languages.

So, when we look to scholars and linguists to understand what the original languages say, it's because we take that seriously. It's because we believe that God spoke through prophets and apostles who wrote, and that as they wrote in those original languages, that was God's word breathed out by God.

So, what I would ask a Latter-day Saint to consider and think about with regards to that statement. Is this. If it's illegitimate to look to linguists and scripture scholars to understand what scripture says, And you do see Latter-day Saints sometimes deride Christians for. looking at commentaries, for example, because hey, you know, commentary is not as good as a prophet is kind of the argument that's made. If it's illegitimate to look to linguists and scripture scholars, then why does the LDS Church Put why did the LDS church put from 1981 on or 1979?

I can't remember exactly when the change was made, but the footnotes with for the New Testament with the Greek footnotes that in Greek certain words mean this. Or the Greek suggests this instead of the way this was translated in the KJV. Why do they have those footnotes there if that is not an aid to understanding God's word? And then the other point I want to make is this. I noted earlier that the question isn't.

Can God or could God speak? The question really is: Has God spoken? And I was just talking about how we take, we as Christians take it seriously that God spoke to the authors of the Bible and through the authors of the Bible. And so when we look to understand what the meaning of a passage was to the original readers or original hearers by looking to scholarly avenues to understand that. Linguistically, culturally, et cetera.

When we do that, it's because we take those things seriously and we believe that God spoke.

Okay. And so when I said earlier that I think there's many reasons to believe that God hasn't spoken within the Latter-day Saint Tradition, at least not to give new scripture. I'd like to give an example. In the Book of Mormon, there's a character named Nephi, and he is said to be an ancient prophet who wrote upon plates. And his writings were contained on the plates supposedly that Joseph Smith received from the angel Moroni and translated by the gift and power of God.

And Nephi. Is presented as writing in chapter 29 of his second book, which is supposed to have taken place around 559 to 545 BC. And Nephi supposedly writes, But thus saith the Lord God, O fools, they shall have a Bible.

Now he's responding to what is said in verse 3, which says, And because my words shall hiss forth, many of the Gentiles shall say, A Bible, a Bible. We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible. But thus saith the Lord God, going on to verse 4: O fools, they shall have a Bible, and it shall proceed forth from the Jews, mine ancient covenant people. And what thank they the Jews for the Bible which they received from them? Yea, what do the Gentiles mean?

Do they remember the travails and the labors and the pains of the Jews and their diligence unto me in bringing forth salvation unto the Gentiles?

So Nephi is. Presented as writing this whole argument about the Gentiles. And here he's specifically talking about Gentiles upon the American continent as. Shown in context of the previous chapters, and that he's apparently seen them in vision saying, A Bible, a Bible, we've already got a Bible. The reason we Christians take seriously and study the Bible seriously is because it's a historical record.

The writers really did exist in a specific historical and cultural context that each of them had, and they wrote into that specific historical and cultural context. Nephi, there's zero evidence that Nephi ever existed. The only evidence we have for the Book of Mormon is that Joseph Smith published the Book of Mormon in 1830 in English. There's nothing else. No other document, no other manuscript, no other plates that have been ever found.

That contains the writings of Nephi. And so you have Nephi, a character in the Book of Mormon, talking about a context that is Joseph Smith's context. Where he purported to bring forth a new Bible. The newspapers around Palmyra pilloried him for bringing forth a new gold Bible. You can look up the historical record, it's all in the newspapers around Palmyra.

And you have Joseph Smith reacting to in the voice of Nephi his own historical context, where people are saying, A Bible, a Bible, we've already got a Bible, we don't need any new Bible. And I remember reading that passage on my mission in the last area of my mission. I've talked about how, you know, seeing as I read through the New Testament, really poured over the New Testament in my last area of my mission and saw how much of the New Testament was. lifted from the Bible. Or how much of the New Testament was lifted and inserted into the Book of Mormon?

The whole narrative of Alma the Younger parallels. Paul the Apostle, right? And so, but then this passage, I remember sitting on my bed reading it one day, and it hit me in such a different way than it had before, where I just kind of realized Joseph Smith is writing. His own context here, you know, Gentiles saying a Bible, a Bible.

So I wanted to bring that up because, like I said earlier, there are lots of reasons to believe that God hasn't spoken within the Latter-day Saint faith tradition. And that's just one of them that was kind of became clear to me. And Um I kind of juxtapose that against My own studies of the Bible as I came out of the LDS faith and I wanted to know: okay, I don't believe I can trust the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine of Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price anymore. Can I trust the Bible? And I know that there are critical scholars who write, you know, skeptical of the Bible, and I wanted to understand what their arguments were.

You know, the amazing thing, the magnificent thing to me, all to the glory of God, is that there's a wealth of evidence, manuscript evidence for the Bible that we can trace back through the centuries. And that's in the Greek, it's in the Aramaic, it's in the Hebrew. And then we have the Dead Sea Scrolls, which in many ways confirm the transmission of the Bible by faithful people over the centuries in a faithful way. And so I found that there was just so much more reason to put my faith and trust in the reliability of God. God's word in the Bible than there was for the Latter-day Saint additional canon.

Yeah, amen. Thanks for sharing that. It was great. Thank you for sharing your experiences too. And I appreciate that you made a case for the reliability of the Bible versus the other books in the LDS canon.

And we also are planning on doing an episode where we talk about the reliability of the New Testament.

So we'll go more in depth on that, hopefully. Shout out to Chase Orasco for. Suggesting we do that? Yep, exactly.

So should we read the conclusion? All right, conclusion. Converts across the world continue to join the Church of Jesus Christ, the Latter-day Saints, in part because of its doctrinal and spiritual distinctiveness. That distinctiveness flows from the knowledge restored to this earth, together with the power of the Holy Ghost present in the church, because of restored priesthood authority, keys. Ordinances and the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The fruits of the restored gospel are evident in the lives of its faithful members. While members of the Church of Jesus Christ, the Latter-day Saints have no desire to compromise the distinctiveness of the restored Church of Jesus Christ. They wish to work together with other Christians and people of all faiths to recognize and remedy many of the moral and family issues faced by society. The Christian conversation is richer for what the Latter-day Saints bring to the table. There is no good reason for Christian faiths to ostracize each other when there has never been more urgent need for unity in proclaiming the divinity and teaching of Jesus Christ.

One thought I had there was: it was like we talked about earlier, they want they want to include be included at the table, but I forgot that that's like literally a phrase that's in the conclusion, they you know, we should. They talk about the Christian conversation is richer for what the LD Latter-day Saints bring to the table.

So, you know, they want to be literally at the table with all the other Christians.

So that was fine.

So, what do you think about this concluding section, Paul? A couple of thoughts. One is, I don't know that it's still accurate. To make the claim that I guess it is accurate to claim that converts across the world continue to join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but it is certainly not growing at the rate that it once was. Um With regards to converts, I was listening back to Richard Bushman's Roughstone Rolling biography of Joseph Smith earlier today in preparation for an episode that we're going to do on Mormon book reviews with Steven Peineker.

And I was struck by one reference that Richard Bushman made to a letter that Brigham Young wrote to Joseph Smith about the converts. I believe it was an I believe that Brigham Young was in England at the time. I know he was one of the first missionaries to England. And I think he was writing from there back to Joseph Smith about the English converts and made reference to the fact that they were not from the upper crust of society, which kind of is, I think, common knowledge with regards to the British converts to the LDS faith. It was a period of immigration and any opportunity that people saw for a better way of life where they could come to America and maybe get a parcel of land and make their own way.

I think people were jumping at it.

So Brigham Young was kind of commenting on the fact that these were not the upper crust of British.

Society, and that he specifically said that they're not particularly taken to reason that. Testimony is enough for them. And I think that's an interesting statement because it's similar to what's being said here about, you know, the power of the Holy Ghost present in the church and restored priesthood authority and keys. You know, that these are the testimony of these things is what. What draws people, you know, these converts that that paragraph is talking about.

But I think it is important to involve reason and logic in what we believe and what we accept. You know, people accept things for lots of reasons, and people accept many different contradictory teachings and doctrines when it comes to religion based on. What they think is good, what they feel is good. And not all of that can be true, right? There's the law of non-credit contradiction says that.

Not all of that can be true. There's lots of teaching, but there is truth, capital T. And so, in the second paragraph, when they say that the Christian conversation is richer for what the Latter-day Saints bring to the table, that to me sounds like an argument being made by a Latter-day Saint scholar. wanting to make a contribution to the broader Christian conversation. And that's fine if that's what they want to do with their scholarly life.

Um but I would argue that With regards to capital T truth, if the Latter-day Saint Uh well what the Latter-day Saints bring to the table is Um Truth, then that doesn't make the Christian conversation richer. If I were to decide today that I had the truth and I started teaching some pretty out there and out there doctrines that aren't biblical in the way that Smith did, I wouldn't be able to argue that. My addition to the Christian conversation makes it richer. You know, if it diminishes biblical truth, you're not making the conversation richer.

So, thoughts on that, Matthew? Yeah, good points. I was thinking, I was reminded of there's a presentation from Justin Peters where he was showing kind of a slideshow of a lot of weird, you know, teachings and heresies from. Modern prosperity gospel preachers, word of faith preachers. And Benny Hinn once said that, you know, within each member of the Trinity, so within the three persons, there are three parts, you know, kind of like how we're made of body, soul, and spirit, is what he was claiming.

Well, they're made of body, soul, and spirit, too. You know, so how many gods are there? Nine. There's nine gods in the Trinity and I, you know, that just blew me away. It's like.

Does, like you said, does that make it richer, the conversation richer by having such weird ideas? I think it. It adds to the conversation, but it's just going to, it's going to muddle, it's going to muddy up the, you know, what the Bible actually teaches. It's going to. To put a lot of doubt into some people's minds, uh, that maybe struggle, you know, to kind of filter out what is true and what is false doctrine.

You know, they're, I mean, I know personally people who ask me questions about that. They're like, well, what do you think about this? You know, some posts that somebody made on social media or something that they said, and they'll ask me what I think. You know, they'll thank me for helping them to understand it because sometimes, you know, some people just aren't really into, you know. parsing out all the logical arguments or They can't really understand specifically what that person is trying to say.

And so, you know, when we allow these kinds of teachings to be propagated, you know, throughout the church and not have them be. Address, that's really dangerous. And so it's not that we should shut them down and say you can't talk or you can't have a voice, but. But we do need faithful. Christian scholarship, and you know, and creeds and confessions can help with that, you know, because they lay out what does the Bible teach.

So, when someone comes along and teaches something brand new, we can say, Well, I mean, no, you know, the Bible says this, and we know that because these creeds and confessions. Teach, you know, they expound upon what has already been taught in the Bible. You know, one of the most dangerous things can be is for someone to have no context for what the Bible teaches, you know, no understanding of the original languages. And then they just open the Bible and they say, and they read a few lines here and there, and then they come up with their own ideas. And that could be very dangerous.

One thing I wanted to bring up too is following that line, it says in the Gospel Topics essay, it says, There is no good reason for Christian faiths to ostracize each other when there has never been more urgent need for unity and proclaiming the divinity and teachings of Jesus Christ. And first point I want to make is going back to what we talked about before, the LDS Church was very clear. And in the Book of Mormon, it was very clear that you're either part of the church of the Lamb or you're part of the church of the devil. You know, there's no third, there's no third party. If you're not with Christ, you're against him kind of thing.

And so, and that was kind of the view that you know that James Talmadge and other LDS leaders have taken. They're like, you know, Brigham Young was also very clear, and Bruce ArmerConke and his Mormon Doctrine agreed. That sectarian Christianity is apostate Christianity. It's false Christianity. It's not the true church.

It's part of the church of the devil. And so to say that, you know, we shouldn't ostracize each other. But it's like, okay, you know, Joseph Smith also said in his history, specifically, he knows that he knew for himself, you know, supposedly after the first vision, that Presbyterian. Presbyterianism is not true. And so he specifically said, he's specifically ostracizing them from the Christian faith.

And so, I don't know, it just seems a little bit, it seems a little bit problematic to make statements like that, you know, that we shouldn't ostracize each other when there have been very many strong statements from LDS scripture and leaders. Know, kind of ostracizing other, you know, Christian faiths or us, you know, denominations. And the second point I wanted to make is that.

So they're saying that we shouldn't ostracize each other when there has never been more urgent need for unity in proclaiming the divinity and teachings of Jesus Christ.

Well, right there, I kind of have an issue because. The way the LDS defined divinity is completely different from what historic Christianity does. Divinity is not being the offspring of a god. You know, or and it's or it's not attaining godhood through obedience to the quote-unquote restored gospel of Jesus Christ. You know, divinity is something that you either have or you don't.

You know, Jesus Christ is God because he has eternally been God, he's unchangingly God. He's infinitely God. There's, you know, he is God, and that's something that we can never be.

So, and so, how can we have unity in proclaiming the divinity and teachings of Jesus Christ when we don't agree on what it means to be divine and we don't agree on what Jesus Christ actually taught?

So, I'm not really quite sure how we're supposed to have unity in proclaiming these things when we don't even agree on it. Yeah, all really good points. Thank you for that, Matthew. You really got me thinking on On one thing in particular.

So, kind of going back to the conversation around, you know, is the conversation richer? You touched on that too, right? And you said, you know, false teachings certainly add to the conversation, like the teachings of Benny Hinn, but does it make it richer? No, it doesn't. And I think Latter-day Saints should agree with that point, right?

Because even within the Latter-day Saint faith tradition, you have Um People who claim to be prophets outside of the hierarchy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Denver Snuffer is one. And you know, the LDS church. Held what's been termed as the Boise Rescue to denounce Denver Snuffer and his teachings and his followers' teachings. KUTV News in Salt Lake City, the headline about that from Thursday, June 18th, 2015, was LDS Church holds special meeting to denounce false prophets.

A high-ranking leader visited members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Idaho Saturday evening in an unusual meeting, sparking speculation and discussion about the reason behind it. Elder Dallin H. Oakes, a member of the church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, had a specific message about false prophets. When you follow false prophets, he said, when you start toward apostasy, you are on the wrong side. Oakes told members of three LDS stakes, stand fast with the leadership of the church.

Oakes was joined by church historian Richard Turley. Together, they addressed critics of the church. Those claims, further on in the article, those claims have been made by Denver Sneffer, an attorney from Sandy.

So, would Latter-day Saints argue that Denver Snuffer's teachings? And his drawing away of people from the LDS church to his own movement, would they argue that his contributions? Um, make the conversation richer? I don't think they would. If they did, they wouldn't have held that special meeting, they wouldn't have sent one of their highest leaders out to Idaho to denounce where his teachings were kind of really uh like ticking uh spreading like a wildfire.

So, I just wanted to make that point, uh, because I think it's a I think it's important to point out areas where I think we can agree with Latter-day Saints. Uh, and I so I think they would agree that someone within their uh camp, like a Denver snuffer, doesn't make the conversation richer. Um, where we would say Joseph Smith and his teachings and his followers' teachings don't make the Christian conversation richer. Yeah, that's great. I also wanted to point out it's interesting that.

You know, we look at history, and uh, Gerald and Sandra Tanner were, you know, they were just two little Christians printing out their own stuff on their own printer in Salt Lake City in our tiny little bookstore, and they were never offered a place at the table anywhere to talk to LDS leaders, to talk to, you know, to talk to LDS in general. You know, they were completely kicked out of the table, you know, for decades, and they still kind of are. The only place where Sandra really can go is like, you know, some conferences like Sunstone and things like that. And even then, LDS, I think we talked about this, LDS didn't. To be seen talking to her, you know, because the church had actively said, don't speak to these people, don't talk to them, don't read their material, don't listen to them.

So it's weird that it's like, you know, being the exclusive table and then wanting to have a seat at the table with everybody else is kind of fun. It's kind of a strange twist of history. Yeah, let's see. I had another point too that I had in mind.

So yeah, one thing I want to bring up really, really shortly is that there's some truth to saying that, you know, there are a lot of moral and family issues in society that we're going to have to deal with. And James White brings this up a lot because, you know, a lot of his opponents that he debates that are Roman Catholics, you know, they'll agree on a lot of things like Abortion and things like that, other social issues. But James White says that, you know, as time goes on, and you know, the amount of people who profess to be Christian. Horrible to a Christian tradition as that kind of dwindles, and as more opposition grows against, you know. Against us for social issues, that's gonna squish everybody together, kind of thing.

You know, we're all gonna be closer together. But we still have to maintain our distinctiveness. We can't forget that there are certain Christian truths that are essential that we can't capitulate on. We can't reject those just for the sake of being able to say that we all stand together with one united voice. I've seen several times as I've lived here in New York State.

I've seen people with bumper stickers or holding signs saying, you know, God loves the unborn, pray the rosary. I'll agree with that first line, but the second line, I don't think that's the solution. I don't think praying to Mary is a solution for, you know, going against abortion. And so, you know, we can't give up what we believe is important and essential in the gospel and what scripture teaches just to have unity on social issues. Yeah, really good point.

Have we exhausted what there is to say about this essay? I think so, at least for now. I don't have anything else to add to you. Just a final plea to our listeners, in particular our Latter-day Saint listeners. Again, a church does not make you a Christian.

Having 100% correct theology and beliefs does not make you a Christian. Not having, not believing in additional scripture or the possibility of it doesn't make you a Christian. What makes you a Christian is God changing your heart, regenerating you, and bringing you to faith in his Son. Jesus Christ by a drawing that is done by the work of the Holy Spirit in your life. And that's what makes you a Christian.

And when that takes place, there is a willingness and a humility to say, okay, I am like a child again, right? Jesus said, You must become like a child. And The New Testament refers to new Christians as babes in Christ. And so there is a sense that you need to be humble and learn as you feel drawn and are brought into Christ. And that.

Sense of humility is important to have. Being willing to allow the Holy Spirit to conform your beliefs and your life to the Word of God. These are the things that make one a Christian, not whether you belong to a particular church or you hold a particular set of beliefs. We thank you for tuning into 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 Outer Brightness, wherever you listen to podcasts. If you're benefiting from our content, please write a review to help us spread the word. You can also subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit that notification bell. Music for Outer Brightness is graciously provided by the talented Brianna Flournoy and Adams Rode. You can learn more about Adams Road by visiting their ministry page at adamsroadministry.com.

In the past. I believed in my own righteousness and Hope that I was worthy of the blood that Jesus shed. But now I know I know that all the works I did were meaningless. With Jesus' lonely death on the cross where he bore sin, and now I have. Have the Right, just next That is My faith in Jesus.

I could save her everything I lost compared to knowing Jesus for whose sake I have lost all things. Oh, because of the cross. On the cross, Jesus took the cross. Go away. The red and code The law of words that stood opposed.

And they'll be there for For me, and through the cross, he put to death hostility. And did his party reconciled Us to God who brought us peace. And I am crucified with Christ. And I no longer live, but he lives in me. I consider everything I lost compared to knowing Jesus for whose sake I have lost all things.

Oh, but when I came, Jesus, it was worth the cost on my righteousness I count now. Yeah. Because of the Come on.

Some demand design and some seek to be wise But we preach Christ crucified A stumbling block for some The foolishness of God But wiser than the wisest man The power of the cross except In the cross of our Lord. Through which the world has been created Crucified to me. And I to the world, so I take up my cross and follow where Jesus leads. Oh, I can settle everything I lost compared to knowing Jesus for whose sake I have lost all these. Oh, yeah, but when I gave Jesus, it was worth the cost.

All my righteousness I count as lost because of the cross, because of the cross, because of the cross.